Derrick Hills v. Daniel McDermott, 702 F.3d 874

Hills, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s affirmation of a bankruptcy court order imposing penalties for violations of 11 U.S.C. §§ 110 and 526.
Wicker filed a Chapter 7 petition and amended a declaration alleging a Crane and Shore employee named Derek helped prepare the petition for $400.
Hills denied assisting Wicker; Wicker testified at a show-cause hearing that a man at Crane and Shore helped her.
The Trustee moved for an order requiring Hills to pay penalties to Wicker, the bankruptcy court, and the Trustee, attaching a deposition transcript where Wicker stated Hills helped and instructed her to lie.
At the May 4, 2011 hearing, Wicker confirmed meeting Hills and paying him $400; Hills claimed no recollection of meeting Wicker; Wicker testified she lied due to fear.
The bankruptcy court ordered $2,000 to Wicker under § 110(i)(1)(B), a $4,500 fine under § 110(l)(1) for three violations (tripled under § 110(l)(2)), and a $5,000 civil penalty under § 526(c)(5)(B); the district court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credit for Wicker’s testimony	Hills argues the court erred crediting Wicker’s testimony.	Hills contends Wicker lied; credibility should not support penalties.	No clear error in credibility assessment; credibility supported by Wicker’s amended declaration and deposition.
Validity of penalties under 110 and 526	Hills challenges the imposition of penalties.	Court properly punished fraudulent, deceptive, and untruthful conduct under §§ 110 and 526.	Penalties properly imposed under §§ 110 and 526; combined award affirmed.
Challenge to right to work as a petition preparer	Hills asserts injunction bars him from working as a petition preparer.	Injunction issued in a separate case; cannot be challenged here; sanctions rely on §§ 110 and 526 violations.	Injunction from another case not reviewable here; penalties grounded in § 110 and § 526 violations.
Standard of review applied	Hills argues a different standard applies to bankruptcy sanctions.	Court applied standard of review applicable to these facts; no error.	Court followed applicable standard; no error in review.

In re Cannon, 277 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2002) (bankruptcy court factual findings upheld unless clearly erroneous)