Court Opinion

ID: 9405590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 20:00:44.852979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.133303
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0300n.06

                                           No. 20-4303

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                    FILED
                                                                                 Jun 28, 2023
                                                             )               DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
 HARRY C. CALCUTT, III,
                                                             )
        Petitioner,                                          )
                                                                  ON REMAND FROM THE
                                                             )
 v.                                                               SUPREME COURT OF THE
                                                             )
                                                                  UNITED STATES
                                                             )
 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,                      )
                                                                                         ORDER
        Respondent.                                          )
                                                             )

Before: BOGGS, GRIFFIN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

       The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued an administrative order barring

Harry C. Calcutt, III from the banking industry and ordering him to pay civil penalties. See Calcutt

v. FDIC, 37 F.4th 293, 309 (6th Cir. 2022). We previously held that the FDIC legally erred in the

standards that it applied when issuing this order, but that substantial evidence otherwise supported

its order under the proper legal rules. See id. at 329–35. The Supreme Court granted Calcutt’s

petition for a writ of certiorari in part and reversed. See Calcutt v. FDIC, 143 S. Ct. 1317, 1321

(2023) (per curiam). The Court held that after identifying the legal errors, the proper course was

to remand to the FDIC for it to reconsider its order under the proper legal standards. Id. at 1318,

1320–21.

       Accordingly, we VACATE the FDIC’s order and REMAND this matter to the FDIC so that

it may reconsider Calcutt’s case in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

                                              ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

                                              Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk