United States Sixth Circuit

Defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiring to solicit and obtain prohibited payments from union contractors, and for soliciting and obtaining such payments, in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, are affirmed over claims that: 1) the informal resolution of a payment dispute qualified as a "settlement" under 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(2); 2) insufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding that the exception to liability under 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(3) should not apply; and 3) the district court engaged in unsupported judicial fact finding to arrive at a sentence.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/24/2007
• Decided 03/03/2008
• Published 03/03/2008

Judges

• Before: KEITH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges;  ALDRICH, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  James K. Robinson, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, D.C., Christopher P. Yates, Yates, LaGrand & Denenfeld, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants.  Daniel R. Hurley, Assistant United States Attorney, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  James K. Robinson, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, D.C., Christopher P. Yates, Yates, LaGrand & Denenfeld, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants.  Walter I. Kozar, David E. Morris, Assistant United States Attorneys, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.