|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENNETH HEATH, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-81115—George C. Steeh, District Judge.
Argued: April 23, 2008
Decided and Filed: May 19, 2008
Before: CLAY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; SCHWARZER, District Judge.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Kenneth Heath was charged with four counts of attempting to evade the payment of federal income taxes between 1999 and 2002, and with two counts of presenting fictitious financial instruments. Heath argues on appeal that the district court committed reversible error by (1) refusing to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove that he owed a “substantial” amount of federal income tax, (2) failing to clarify for the jury that it could not find him guilty on a particular count unless his allegedly unlawful conduct was willful as to that count, and (3) erroneously stating in the jury instructions that a fictitious financial instrument must be “free of disqualifying remarks” as opposed to “disqualifying marks.” He also asserts that the district court erred at sentencing by using the wrong standard when denying him a downward departure for diminished capacity under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
|
GIANT EAGLE, INC., et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. PHAR-MOR, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 06-00432—David D. Dowd, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: February 8, 2008
Decided and Filed: May 19, 2008
Before: NORRIS, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s review of a bankruptcy-court order in a Chapter 11 proceeding. Giant Eagle, as lessor, appeals the decision disallowing its claim for future-rent damages arising from a bankrupt lessee’s rejection of a lease for personal property, which was disallowed on the basis that a substitute lease for that property, if fulfilled, would have mitigated the claimed damages. Phar-Mor, as lessee, appeals the decision granting the lessor administrative expenses in the form of post-petition rent payments, from the petition date until the lease-rejection date. Ultimately, we REVERSE with respect to the disallowance of future rent and REMAND to the district court, for further remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. We AFFIRM the order granting as an administrative expense the post-petition rent due for the period from the petition date until the rejection of the lease.