George v Urban Settlement Services and Bank of America, N.A.

George appealed the dismissal of his RICO and promissory estopel claims. The panel reversed and remanded. It held the RICO counts were incorrectly dismissed as there was evidence that there was a RICO enterprise consisting Bank, Urban and other natural and legal persons, Bank and Urban are separate legal entities, Urban was a subordinate in the RICO enterprise carrying out the scheme of the enterprise by creating a dysfunctional records system which made it appear that George and other applicants for mortgage relief had not submitted required paperwork on Bank’s orders and was not only an agent of Bank. It held some of the fraud allegations were sufficient as to Bank as they listed specific Bank employees with times, dates and the statements which were alleged to be false and sufficient as to Urban as it alleged Urban employees were instructed to claim they were Bank employees and make misrepresentations when George and others called Urban. The panel also held the promissory estoppel claim against Bank was incorrectly dismissed as the promise to permanently reduce the loan amount after successfully paying three months under a payment plan plainly promised relief, making the payments instead of relying on a different approach was sufficient to show reasonable and detrimental reliance.

United States v Lustyik

Lustyik appealed his sentence arguing his right to counsel was violated when the district court did not allow his attorney access to certain classified information. The panel affirmed. It held that the restrictions on access did not violate the 6th amendment because Lustyik had access to much of the classified material disclosed in the case, the presentence report was made without the use of the material, the government made its sentencing argument without using the material and the district court had reviewed the material and found it irrelevant to whether or not Lustyik thought a codefendant was a valuable source of information and in any event counsel was able to argue the relevant statutory factors and obtain a downward departure. The panel remanded the case to clarify the general 10 year sentence as two of the counts only have 5 year maximums.

Wood v McCullum

Wood appealed the rejection of his exhausted claims and dismissal of his unexhausted claim arguing this approach was barred by circuit precedent. After issuing an order to show cause, the panel agreed holding the mixed disposition was barred by precedent and remanded for further proceedings consistent with precedent.