Opinions

This is an ERISA case involving a dispute over the calculation of retirement benefits after a divorce. David Gasper challenged how his monthly annuity payment was reduced to cover the cost of a surviving spouse annuity for his former spouse.

1. How to interpret the language of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)
2. Whether the plan administrator correctly calculated the monthly benefit
3. Whether the plan administrator properly responded to document requests

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Specifically:

1. The QDRO's language was unambiguous and permitted, but did not require, reducing the alternate payee's benefit to cover the surviving spouse annuity cost
2. The plan administrator did not abuse her discretion in calculating Gasper's monthly benefit
3. The plan administrator was not required to pay statutory penalties because Gasper was not prejudiced by any delayed document production and there was no evidence of bad faith

This is an immigration case involving Gustavo Adolfo Osabas-Rivera, a Honduran citizen seeking asylum in the United States based on threats from MS gang members. The court reviewed his asylum and withholding of removal applications, which were denied due to procedural and substantive issues.

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the untimeliness of the asylum application
2. Whether Osabas-Rivera established extraordinary circumstances for his late asylum filing
3. Whether Osabas-Rivera met the requirements for withholding of removal

1. The court lacks jurisdiction to review the untimeliness of the asylum application due to the "to the satisfaction of the Attorney General" language in the statute, which makes the determination discretionary
2. Osabas-Rivera failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the government protection issue for his withholding of removal claim by not meaningfully challenging the immigration judge's finding in his BIA brief
3. The court therefore denied the petition for review in part and dismissed it in part, effectively upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' original decision

This case involves a criminal contempt conviction for Stacy Owens, who failed to report to prison as ordered after being sentenced for a drug conspiracy charge. The court sentenced her to 11 months in prison for the contempt offense.

1. How to determine the sentencing guidelines range for a criminal contempt charge
2. Whether criminal contempt should be classified as a felony or misdemeanor
3. The procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence

The court affirmed the district court's sentence, finding that:

1. Owens's contempt should be treated as a felony because her conduct was identical to felonious conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 3146
2. The district court correctly calculated the guidelines range using § 2J1.6
3. The sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, considering the court's prior sentencing and the need to deter future failures to report to prison

This is an appeal of a supervised release revocation where Timothy Richards was sentenced to 36 months in prison after multiple violations of his supervised release conditions. Richards challenged the sentence, arguing it was primarily based on rehabilitation.

1. Whether the district court improperly focused on rehabilitation when determining the length of the sentence (Tapia error)
2. Whether the sentence was reasonable given the nature of Richards's supervised release violations

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence. The court found that the district court considered multiple factors beyond rehabilitation, including:

1. Richards's personal history and characteristics
2. His criminal history
3. His stated refusal to comply with supervised release conditions
4. Multiple violations of supervised release
5. The desire to ensure Richards nearly completes his original sentence

This is a criminal appeal involving a jury conviction of Antwan Eiland for two counts of distributing crack cocaine based on testimony from a confidential informant and law enforcement agents.

1. Sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction
2. Whether the prosecutor's rebuttal argument improperly commented on the defendant's decision not to testify
3. Whether a juror's post-trial remarks indicated improper bias

1. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient. The court gave substantial deference to the jury's credibility determinations and found that a rational jury could have found Eiland guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The prosecutor's rebuttal argument was not an improper comment on the defendant's silence, as it was contextually a response to the defense's argument about missing evidence.
3. The juror's post-trial remarks did not warrant a new trial, as they did not constitute admissible evidence of juror misconduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).

This is a Black Lung Benefits Act case involving a coal miner, Billie Barr Jr., who sought disability benefits for respiratory conditions developed during his work transporting coal. The case centers on whether Barr's work at an aboveground preparation plant qualifies as work "in an underground coal mine" for purposes of receiving benefits.

1. Whether an aboveground worker can be considered as working "in an underground coal mine"
2. How to interpret the statutory definition of "coal mine" and "appurtenant" facilities
3. Whether a preparation plant miles away from a coal extraction site can be considered part of the same underground mine

The court ruled that:

1. Aboveground workers can qualify as working "in an underground coal mine" based on the statutory definition and implementing regulations
2. The Benefits Review Board erred in reversing the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Concord preparation plant was not part of the Oak Grove mine
3. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the conditions at the preparation plant were substantially similar to an underground mine