DOCSLIB.ORG

Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Abundant Splits and Other Significant Bankruptcy Decisions 38th Annual Commercial Law & Bankruptcy Seminar McCall, Idaho Feb. 6, 2020; 2:30 P.M. Bill Rochelle • Editor-at-Large American Bankruptcy Institute [email protected] • 703. 894.5909 © 2020 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22014 • www.abi.org American Bankruptcy Institute • 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22314 1 www.abi.org Table of Contents Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................ 4 Decided Last Term ........................................................................................................................... 5 Nonjudicial Foreclosure Is Not Subject to the FDCPA, Supreme Court Rules ............................. 6 Licensee May Continue Using a Trademark after Rejection, Supreme Court Rules .................. 10 Court Rejects Strict Liability for Discharge Violations ............................................................... 15 Supreme Court Decision on Arbitration Has Ominous Implications for Bankruptcy ................. 20 Decided This Term ......................................................................................................................... 24 Supreme Court Rules that ‘Unreservedly’ Denying a Lift-Stay Motion Is Appealable .............. 25 Supreme Court Might Allow FDCPA Suits More than a Year After Occurrence ....................... 28 Cases Argued So Far This Term ................................................................................................... 31 Supreme Court to Tackle a Bankruptcy Tax Refund Circuit Split .............................................. 32 The Supreme Court May Duck a Case Involving Federal Common Law vs. State Law ............ 35 Case Still to Be Argued This Term ............................................................................................... 39 Supreme Court Grants ‘Cert’ to Decide Whether Inaction Violates the Automatic Stay ............ 40 Seventh Circuit Solidifies a Circuit Split on the Automatic Stay ................................................ 43 Circuit Split Widens on the Automatic Stay and Turnover of Repossessed Cars ....................... 47 ‘Cert’ Pending ................................................................................................................................ 50 No Decision Soon on Extraterritorial Fraudulent Transfers ........................................................ 51 Second Circuit Allows Extraterritorial Application of Sections 548 and 550 ............................. 53 Reorganization ...................................................................................................................... 58 Fraudulent Transfers ..................................................................................................................... 59 Second Circuit Again Applies the ‘Safe Harbor’ to Protect Selling Shareholders in an LBO .... 60 Trustee Allowed to Sue for Fraudulent Transfer on an Unenforceable Contract ........................ 64 Executory Contracts & Leases ...................................................................................................... 67 Sixth Circuit Gives Primacy to the Bankruptcy Court in Rejecting Power Contracts ................. 68 Executory Contracts Are Automatically Rejected Even if Unscheduled, Fifth Circuit Holds .... 73 Sales ................................................................................................................................................. 75 Section 363 Doesn’t Apply to Asset Sales in a Chapter 11 Plan, Judge Garrity Rules ............... 76 Estate Property ............................................................................................................................... 80 The Debtor or Trustee Control the Privileges of an Independent Audit Committee ................... 81 New York Judge Refuses to Waive Collateralization for Debtors’ Bank Accounts ................... 83 Different Rules Govern When Claims Accrue By or Against an Estate ..................................... 85 Jurisdiction & Power ..................................................................................................................... 88 Circuits Split on Bankruptcy Jurisdiction for Social Security, Medicare Suits ........................... 89 Reading Stern Narrowly, Delaware Judge to Issue Final Order in Fraudulent Transfer Suit ...... 93 Final Orders Allowed in Preference Suits Against Defendants Who Didn’t File Claims ........... 96 ‘Related To’ Jurisdiction Is Measured When the Suit Is Filed, Not Later, Circuit Says ............. 99 Section 505(a) Doesn’t Confer Jurisdiction to Determine Amount of a Tax, Circuit Says ....... 101 Another Court Limits ‘Related To’ Jurisdiction Based on Indemnification Claims ................. 105 Courts Divided on Venue for Small-Dollar Avoidance Actions ............................................... 108 ‘Stern’ Disputes Invoke a Circuit Court’s General Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291......... 111 ‘Close Nexus’ Test Doesn’t Apply to Liquidating Trusts After Confirmation ......................... 113 American Bankruptcy Institute • 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 600 • Alexandria, VA 22314 1 www.abi.org Creating a Split, Sixth Circuit Holds: No Waiver of Immunity for Indian Tribes .................... 115 Sixth Circuit Pronounces a Two-Prong Test to Determine ‘Finality’ ....................................... 119 Third Circuit Expands the Flexible Notion of ‘Finality’ on Bankruptcy Appeals ..................... 122 Plans & Confirmation .................................................................................................................. 125 Intercreditor Agreement Didn’t Apply to Plan Distributions, Third Circuit Holds ................... 126 Fifth Circuit Revokes a Controversial Opinion with Dicta on the Solvent-Debtor Exception .. 130 Eighth Circuit Upholds Backstopped Rights Offerings for Chapter 11 Plans ........................... 134 New York Judge Gives Reasons for Nixing Nonconsensual, Third-Party Releases ................. 137 Another Judge Clamps Down on Third-Party Releases in a Major Reorganization ................. 141 Stays & Injunctions ...................................................................................................................... 144 Divided Fifth Circuit Again Permits Third-Party Injunctions in Stanford Receivership........... 145 Third Circuit Finds Constitutional Power to Grant Releases in Confirmation Orders .............. 149 Opting Out Won’t Justify Imposing Third-Party Releases, Delaware Judge Says .................... 154 Compensation ............................................................................................................................... 157 Fifth Circuit to Rule on Whether Increased U.S. Trustee Fees Are Retroactive ....................... 158 Delaware Judge Upholds U.S. Trustee Fee Increase in Pending Cases ..................................... 160 Increased U.S. Trustee Fees Stick to ‘Revolvers’ but Not to Pending Cases ............................ 162 Preferences & Claims .................................................................................................................. 165 First Circuit Explains How to Avoid Liability for an Underfunded Pension Plan .................... 166 Another Circuit Allows an Unsecured Claim for Contractual Attorneys’ Fees ........................ 168 Fifth Circuit Invokes ‘Policies’ in Ruling on Subordination under Section 510(b) .................. 171 Fifth Circuit Clarifies ‘Admin’ Status for a Drilling Contractor’s Post-Rejection Claims ....... 173 New Jersey Tax Foreclosures Can Be Preferences, Third Circuit Rules ................................... 176 Delaware Judge Allows Unsecured Claim for Contractual Attorneys’ Fees ............................. 179 ‘Deemed Allowed’ Claims Can Be Binding in Subsequent Litigation, Circuit Says ................ 181 Seventh Circuit Splits with the First Circuit on Sufficiency of Financing Statements .............. 184 Consumer Bankruptcy ....................................................................................................... 187 Ethics ............................................................................................................................................. 188 Fifth Circuit Facilitates ‘No Money Down’ Chapter 13s .......................................................... 189 Fourth Circuit Widens the Split on Judicial Estoppel’s Bad Faith Presumption ....................... 193 For Petitions the Clients Had Not Seen or Signed, Lawyer Recommended for Disbarment .... 195 Discharge/Dischargeability.......................................................................................................... 198 Fifth Circuit Makes Student Loans Even More Difficult to Discharge ..................................... 199 Recent Decisions Deepen and Entrench Circuit Split on Discharging Student Loans .............. 202 Courts Interpret Brunner Too Harshly, Bankruptcy Judge Cecelia Morris Says ...................... 206 Discharge Is Enforceable Only in the Issuing District, Fifth Circuit Says ................................ 209 Seventh Circuit Opinion on Contempt Raises Questions under Taggart .................................. 213 Default Judgments Are (Sometimes) Nondischargeable Under Issue Preclusion ..................... 217 Overpaying a DSO Doesn’t Result in a Nondischargeable Debt, Seventh Circuit
Recommended publications
  • Articles Lightened Scrutiny

    Articles Lightened Scrutiny

    VOLUME 124 MARCH 2011 NUMBER 5 © 2011 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES LIGHTENED SCRUTINY Bert I. Huang TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1111 I. DEFERENCE ADRIFT? ........................................................................................................... 1116 A. The Judges’ Hypothesis .................................................................................................... 1118 B. In Search of Evidence ...................................................................................................... 1119 II. A NATURAL EXPERIMENT: “THE SURGE” ..................................................................... 1121 A. The Unusual Origins of the Surge ................................................................................... 1122 B. Toward a Causal Story ..................................................................................................... 1123 C. A Second Experiment ....................................................................................................... 1126 III. FINDINGS: LIGHTENED SCRUTINY ............................................................................... 1127 A. The Data ............................................................................................................................. 1127 B. Revealed Deference ..........................................................................................................
  • For Publication United States Bankruptcy Appellate

    For Publication United States Bankruptcy Appellate

    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _____________________________ BAP NO. PR 16-034 _______________________________ Bankruptcy Case No. 12-08567-MCF Bankruptcy Case No. 12-08570-MCF (Consolidated) Adversary Proceeding No. 14-00030-MCF _______________________________ COUSINS INTERNATIONAL FOOD, CORP., a/k/a IHOP Caguas, and CIF BARCELONETA CORP., a/k/a IHOP Barceloneta, Debtors. _______________________________ ENCANTO RESTAURANTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUIS S. AQUINO VIDAL, OLGA M. VIDAL, HÉCTOR A. CORTÉS BABILONIA, and GUILLERMO D. RODRÍGUEZ SERRANO, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Hon. Mildred Cabán Flores, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge) _______________________________ Before Bailey, Harwood, and Fagone, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. _______________________________ Hermann D. Bauer Alvarez, Esq., Nayuan Zouairabani Trinidad, Esq., and Gabriel L. Olivera Dubón, Esq., on brief for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jacqueline E. Hernandez Santiago, Esq., on brief for Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________ March 21, 2017 _______________________________ Fagone, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Encanto Restaurants, Inc. (“Encanto”), the purchaser of substantially all of the assets of the chapter 11 debtor, Cousins International Food, Corp., a/k/a IHOP Caguas (the “Debtor”), appeals from the bankruptcy court’s June 14, 2016 Opinion and Order (the “June 2016 Order”).1 Encanto also appeals from the bankruptcy court’s June 15, 2016 Judgment (the “Judgment”). By its appeal, Encanto attempts to challenge two refusals by the bankruptcy court: one relating to Encanto’s requests for relief under § 362, and a second relating to its requests for relief under a certain sale order (the “Sale Order”).2 Encanto lacks standing to pursue an appeal from the June 2016 Order and the Judgment to the extent that those rulings denied Encanto’s requests for relief for alleged violations of § 362’s automatic stay.
  • 2013 Mont Pelerin Society Membership List

    2013 Mont Pelerin Society Membership List

    MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 1 ARGENTINA Dr. Martin Krause _____________________ San Isidro, Buenos Aires Argentina Dr. Alberto Benegas-Lynch Jr. San Isidro, BU Argentina 2000 Eduardo Marty 1978 Buenos Aires Argentina Gerardo Bongiovanni 2004 Rosario, Santa Fe Argentina Maria Gabriela Mrad 2007 Buenos Aires Argentina Mr. Walter Castro 2002 Rosario, Santa Fe Argentina Professor Martin Simonetta 2011 Buenos Aires Argentina Mr. Eduardo Helguera 2011 Argentina 1988 _______________________________________________________ H = Home Phone O = Office Phone F = Fax 19/20_ = Year of Membership * = Past President MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 2 Professor Hector Siracusano AUSTRALIA _____________________ Buenos Aires Argentina Dr. Tanveer Ahmed Drummoyne, NSW Australia 1994 Life Member 2011 Eduardo Stordeur Argentina DR. Janet Albrechttsen 2012 Sydney, NSW Dr. Esteban Thomsen Australia Martinez, Buenos Aires Argentina 2011 1988 Professor James Allan Mr Guillermo Yeatts Sherwood, Brisbane, QLD Australia San Isidro, Buenos Aires Argentina 2010 1998 Mr. David Archibald Dr. Meir Zylberberg Perth, WA Buenos Aires Australia Argentina 2011 1969 Life Member _______________________________________________________ H = Home Phone O = Office Phone F = Fax 19/20_ = Year of Membership * = Past President MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 3 Prof. Jeff Bennett Ms. Juel Briggs Gladesville, NSW Gundaroo, NSW Australia Australia 2008 2011 Mr. Chris Berg Mr. Robert Carling Mosman, NSW Melbourne, VIC Australia Australia 2011 2011 Mr. James Cox PSM Dr. Peter J. Boxall AO Sydney, NSW Coogee, NSW Australia Australia 2011 2011 Dr. Jonathan Crowe T. C. Beirne School of Law- The Professor Geoffrey Brennan University of Queensland Canberra W232A Forgan Smith Building, St. Lucia Capus Australia Brisbane, QLD 4072 Australia 1987 2011 _______________________________________________________ H = Home Phone O = Office Phone F = Fax 19/20_ = Year of Membership * = Past President MONT PELERIN SOCIETY DIRECTORY- 2013 4 Michael Darling Mr.
  • Christopher H

    Christopher H

    Christopher H. Schroeder From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III Prepared Testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives June 26, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Christopher H. Schroeder From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III Prepared Testimony to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives June 26, 2008 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Chairman Nadler, Ranking Minority Member Franks, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Christopher H. Schroeder, and I am currently a professor of law and public policy studies at Duke University, as well as of counsel with the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. In the past, I have had the privilege to serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, including a period of time in 1996-97 when I was the acting head of that office. Before that, I have also had the privilege of serving on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including as its Chief Counsel in 1992-93. As you know, the Office of Legal Counsel’s primary responsibility is to provide sound legal advice to other components of the Executive Branch, especially the President and the White House, so that the President can meet his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
  • Expertise and Opinion Assignment on the Courts of Appeals: a Preliminary Investigation

    Expertise and Opinion Assignment on the Courts of Appeals: a Preliminary Investigation

    EXPERTISE AND OPINION ASSIGNMENT ON THE COURTS OF APPEALS: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Jonathan Remy Nash* Abstract This Article examines the role of expertise in judicial opinion assignment and offers four contributions: First, this Article develops a general theory of opinion assignment on multimember courts. Second, this Article uses that theory to predict how expertise might influence opinion assignment. Third, because the theory advanced in this Article suggests that the courts of appeals are far more likely to witness experience-based opinion assignment than is the Supreme Court, this Article contributes to an understanding of opinion assignment practices in this understudied area. Fourth, this Article identifies two settings in which the theory this Article advances should have observable implications, and this Article proceeds to test those implications empirically. It finds that, in the years following the initial adoption of the Sentencing Guidelines, circuit judges who were Sentencing Commissioners were more likely to have assigned to them opinions raising sentencing issues. It also finds that circuit judges who previously served as bankruptcy judges were more likely to have bankruptcy cases assigned to them. The Guidelines setting, moreover, allows for a natural experiment, in that we can test whether judges who served as Commissioners saw disproportionate levels of opinion assignment in criminal cases before the Guidelines took effect; it turns out, consistent with the theory, that they did not. * Professor of Law, Emory
  • United States Court of Appeals

    United States Court of Appeals

    United States Court of Appeals Fifth Federal Judicial Circuit Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas Circuit Judges Priscilla R. Owen, Chief Judge ...............903 San Jacinto Blvd., Rm. 434 ..................................................... (512) 916-5167 Austin, Texas 78701-2450 Carl E. Stewart ......................................300 Fannin St., Ste. 5226 ............................................................... (318) 676-3765 Shreveport, LA 71101-3425 Edith H. Jones .......................................515 Rusk St., U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 12505 ................................... (713) 250-5484 Houston, Texas 77002-2655 Jerry E. Smith ........................................515 Rusk St., U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 12621 ................................... (713) 250-5101 Houston, Texas 77002-2698 James L. Dennis ....................................600 Camp St., Rm. 219 .................................................................. (504) 310-8000 New Orleans, LA 70130-3425 Jennifer Walker Elrod ........................... 515 Rusk St., U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 12014 .................................. (713) 250-7590 Houston, Texas 77002-2603 Leslie H. Southwick ...............................501 E. Court St., Ste. 3.750 ........................................................... (601) 608-4760 Jackson, MS 39201 Catharina Haynes .................................1100 Commerce St., Rm. 1452 ..................................................... (214) 753-2750 Dallas, Texas 75242 James E. Graves Jr. ................................501 E. Court
  • The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot

    The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot

    A Backdoor to Policy Making: The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot The Supreme Court's decisions in Vacco v Quill' and Wash- ington v Glucksberg2 held that a state can ban assisted suicide without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these high profile cases, six phi- losophers filed an amicus brief ("Philosophers'Brief') that argued for the recognition of a constitutional right to die.3 Although the brief was written by six of the most prominent American philoso- phers-Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Thomas Scanlon, and Judith Jarvis Thomson-the Court made no mention of the brief in unanimously reaching the oppo- site conclusion.4 In light of the Court's recent failure to engage philosophical arguments, this Comment examines the conditions under which philosophy does and should affect judicial decision making. These questions are relevant in considering the proper role of the Court in controversial political questions and are central to a recent de- bate focusing on whether the law can still be considered an autonomous discipline that relies only on traditional legal sources. Scholars concerned with law and economics and critical legal studies have argued that the law is no longer autonomous, but rather that it does and should draw on many external sources in order to resolve legal disputes. Critics of this view have main- tained that legal reasoning is distinct from other disciplines, and that the law has and should maintain its own methods, conven- tions, and conclusions. This Comment follows the latter group of scholars, and ar- gues that the Court should, as it did in the right-to-die cases, stay clear of philosophy and base its decisions on history, precedent, and a recognition of the limits of judicial authority.
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States

    An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States

    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
  • Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D

    Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D

    Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2d. ed.) OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEES: Where They Are in Place, How They Operate, and What to Consider in Establishing and Managing Them The Governance Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution have revised the June 2010 first edition of this guide, and will continue to issue revisions periodically. It provides United States senators, other federal legislators, and their staffs with information about creating committees to screen potential judicial and law enforcement position nominees; provides them and committee members with information about committee operations; and provides others interested in federal judicial selection with information about an often- overlooked aspect of the process. It is not a “best practices” manual, in part because relatively little is known about how such committees work and even less about what seems to work best. The most current version of the guide is available at: www.du.edu/legalinstitute and www.brookings.edu/experts/wheelerr.aspx This guide was authored principally by: Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program. He has served on the IAALS Board of Advisors since its creation in 2006. Rebecca Love Kourlis, executive director of IAALS. She served on Senator Ken Salazar’s screening committee and co-chaired the committee that Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet appointed to screen candidates for two District of Colorado vacancies. (Malia Reddick, director of judicial programs for the Institute, assists with ongoing revisions.) The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) is a national, independent research center dedicated to continuous improvement of the process and culture of the civil justice system.
  • Recognition Report SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019

    Recognition Report SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019

    FY 2019 Recognition Report SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019 The University of Texas School of Law FY 2019 Recognition Report CONTENTS 2 Giving Societies Letter from the Dean 9 A Year in Numbers We’ve just completed another remarkable annual giving drive 11 Participation by Class Year at the law school. Here you will find our roster of devoted 34 Longhorn Loyal supporters who participated in the 2018-19 campaign. They are 47 Sustaining Scholars our heroes. 48 100% Giving Challenge The distinctive mission and historical hallmark of our law school is to provide a top-tier education to our students without 49 Planned Giving top-tier debt. Historically, we have done it better than anyone. 50 Women of Texas Law You all know it well; I’ll bet most of you would agree that 51 Texas Law Reunion 2020 coming to the School of Law was one of the best decisions you ever made. The value and importance of our mission is shown in the lives you lead. This Recognition Report honors the This great mission depends on support from all of our alumni. alumni and friends who gave generously I hope that if you’re not on the report for the year just ended, to The University of Texas School of Law you’ll consider this an invitation to be one of the first to get on from September 1, 2018 to August 31, next year’s list! 2019. We sincerely thank the individuals and organizations listed herein. They help Please help us to keep your school great.
  • Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments

    Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments

    S. HRG. 110–138 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 6, MARCH 13, APRIL 11, JUNE 20, AND JULY 19, 2007 PART 1 Serial No. J–110–8 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:38 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 037658 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37658.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:38 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 037658 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37658.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC S. HRG. 110–138 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 6, MARCH 13, APRIL 11, JUNE 20, AND JULY 19, 2007 PART 1 Serial No. J–110–8 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 37–658 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:38 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 037658 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37658.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R.
  • Courts & Government Offices

    Courts & Government Offices

    COURTS & GOVERNMENT OFFICES Area Code 614 unless otherwise noted COURTS & GOVERNMENT OFFICES FEDERAL COURTS Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Senior Judge U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio 241 U.S. Post Office and Federal Building Eastern Division (Columbus) 315 West Allegan U.S. Supreme Court Lansing MI 48933 (517) 377-1513 85 Marconi Blvd., Columbus, OH 43215 One First St. NE Cincinnati Office (513) 564-7466 www.ohsd.uscourts.gov (614) 719-3000 Washington, DC 20543 Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Judge www.supremecourt.gov 310 South Main Street, Room 333 Office of the Clerk Clerk, Scott S. Harris (202) 479-3011 London KY 40741 (606) 877-7930 John Hehman, Clerk of Court Justices Cincinnati Office (513) 564-7469 Room 121 Fx 719-3500 John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice (202) 479-3000 Alice M. Batchelder Division Manager Antonin Scalia (202) 479-3000 143 West Liberty Street Scott Miller 719-3000 Anthony Kennedy (202) 479-3000 Medina OH 44356 (330) 746-6026 U.S. Pretrial Services 719-3170 Clarence Thomas (202) 479-3000 Cincinnati Office (513) 564-7472 U.S. Probation 719-3100 Ruth Bader Ginsburg (202) 479-3000 Martha Craig Daughtrey, Senior Judge Stephen G. Breyer (202) 479-3000 300 Customs House U.S. District Judges Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (202) 479-3000 701 Broadway Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief Judge 719-3240 Sonia Sotomayor (202) 479-3000 Nashville TN 37203 (615) 736-7678 Room 301 Elena Kagan (202) 479-3000 Cincinnati Office (513) 564-7475 Ctrm Deputy Andy Quisumbing 719-3244 Karen Nelson Moore Counselor to the Chief Justice Algenon L.