United States v Barnett

Barnett challenged the restitution order in his criminal sentence. The panel affirmed. It held Barnett failed to challenge the factual basis for the amount of restitution in the presentence report as his attorney only objected to the legal inferences to be drawn from the facts which is inadequate under the controlling statue. It held the government proved the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence as Barnett admitted to embezzling the money; Barnett followed paperwork protocols for all other expenditures and had access to cash to pay for assistance awards to needy tribal members during business hours yet made ATM withdrawals for gambling during those hours.

Lebahn v National Farmers Union Uniform Pension Plan

Lebahn appealed the dismissal of his ERISA complaint arguing he had adequately pled fiduciary status for the person why calculated his pension benefits and had adequately pled equitable estoppel. The panela affirmed. It held that under the plain language of the statue and Department of Labor interpretive guidelines, merely calculating benefits does not make a person a plan fiduciary and thus the breach fiduciary duty claim was properly dismissed. It affirmed on equitable estoppel as Lebahn did not challenge one of the two grounds supporting the district court’s decision.