133576P.pdf   12/29/2014  United States  v.  Robert Lee Bailey
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3576
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Bye and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case. For the court's prior opinion reversing and remanding the 
   denial of Bailey's Rule 41 motion so that it could be converted into an 
   action for damages, see United States v. Bailey, 700 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 
   2013). Where the government agreed to settle Bailey's claim for lost 
   property for $2,500 but he did not receive a check for the funds because 
   it was offset against his existing $45,956 child support debt, the 
   government did not breach the settlement agreement as Bailey received a 
   benefit - an offset against his debt - even if he did not receive the 
   funds personally; further, Bailey was notified during the settlement 
   discussions that any federal payments he received were subject to offset, 
   and he received what he bargained for.