Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts six today
More details later ...
Padilla, Luis F. v. Gonzales, Alberto R. (Immigration) [9 pp.]
Holton, John v. Indiana Horse Racing (SD Ind., Larry J. McKinney, Chief Judge) [4 pp.]
Centers, William L. v. Centennial Mortgage (ND Ind., Allen Sharp, Judge) [12 pp.]
USA v. Gardner, Benjamin (SD Ind., Sarah Evans Barker, Judge) [5 pp.]
Before BAUER, COFFEY, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge. Benjamin Gardner pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and stealing firearms from a licensed firearms dealer, id. § 922(u). The parties agreed that the sentencing guidelines applied but disagreed whether Gardner’s prior conviction for Residential Entry under Indiana law constituted “a crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, which would affect Gardner’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. The district court concluded that the conviction did constitute a crime of violence and sentenced Gardner to 108 months’ imprisonment. Gardner appeals, and we affirm.
Voest-Alpine Indus v. Good, Margaret (SD Ind., Sarah Evans Barker, Judge) [17 pp.]
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and WOOD and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
WOOD, Circuit Judge. This case begins and ends with our lack of appellate jurisdiction, though the path to that conclusion is not as straightforward as one might wish. After Heartland Steel, Inc., filed for bankruptcy, Voest- Alpine Industries, Inc., submitted a proof of claim seeking payment for services that it had provided to Heartland. Following some procedural finagling, Heartland’s trustee in bankruptcy sued Voest in Indiana state court alleging breach of contract and constructive fraud in relation to the provision of those services. Voest promptly removed the case to the bankruptcy court. At the trustee’s motion, the district court withdrew the reference from the bankruptcy court and remanded the trustee’s claims to state court. Voest asks that we reverse the district court, offering a clever but ultimately unpersuasive justification for why the jurisdictional bars imposed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1452(b) and 1291 do not preclude our review of either aspect of the court’s order. Because we conclude that § 1452(b) and § 1291 govern, we dismiss Voest’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Sharif, Richard v. Int'l Devmt Group Co (ND Ill.)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 22, 2005 01:08 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions