|
In re: JEANNETTE L. DILWORTH, Debtor. _____________________________________ LOUIS J. YOPPOLO, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 05-75071—Richard L. Speer, Bankruptcy Judge.
Submitted: December 12, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 27, 2009
Before: KENNEDY and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; THAPAR, District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this appeal we are asked to decide whether the bankruptcy court erred by holding that a certain bank-to-bank transfer of funds was a preference within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 547. Because we conclude that the transfer in fact diminished the debtor’s assets and the “earmark” doctrine does not apply, and therefore the transfer was of an interest of the debtor in the property, we affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court.
|
ALMON DALE ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Paducah.
No. 07-00049—Edward H. Johnstone, District Judge.
Submitted: October 31, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 27, 2009
Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Almon Dale Allen applied for and was denied social security benefits for the period ending September 11, 2006. While attempting to reopen this initial case, Allen filed a new benefits application and the Social Security Administration granted Allen benefits beginning September 12, 2006. Allen now appeals the denial of his first application, claiming that the initial administrative law judge violated agency procedural regulations by failing to articulate “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of his treating physician. Alternatively, Allen argues that the subsequent favorable determination serves as new, material evidence in the initial decision requiring a remand to the agency. Because the ALJ properly followed the Social Security Administration’s regulations, and because the subsequent favorable decision, on its own, is not new and material evidence, we affirm the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Allen’s initial benefits request.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES M. FUNK, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Filed: March 27, 2009
This matter now comes before the court upon the motion of the appellant United States, to which motion the appellee has not objected, to dismiss the appeal with prejudice pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 42(b).
The court GRANTS the unopposed motion to dismiss. The opinion of the panel, which was vacated pursuant to the court’s order of December 18, 2008 granting en banc review, 6 Cir. R. 35(a), remains vacated.