CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

SALVATORE MUNACO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 07-1836

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 06-14019—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: March 17, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 15, 2008
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; ROGERS, Circuit Judge; and SHADUR, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Salvatore Munaco paid the federal government $326,061.34 to satisfy a federal tax lien placed on real property he owned in Florida. Believing that the lien was invalid, Munaco sued for a refund in federal district court. Unfortunately for Munaco, the district court ruled correctly that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States is immune from suit. Even more unfortunately, Munaco’s failure to pursue the prescribed statutory remedies available to a person in his position means that he has no further remedy available to him. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Munaco’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRENT TERRY,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 07-3757

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 06-00091—Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief District Judge.
Argued: March 17, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 15, 2008
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; ROGERS, Circuit Judge; and SHADUR, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Chief Judge. Brent Terry entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Terry argues that the search warrant permitting federal agents to search his home was not grounded upon probable cause, and that the search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.