for the Eighth Circuit

112855P.pdf   01/15/2013  Hallmark Cards  v.  Janet Murley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-2855
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Contracts. Taking into consideration the gravity of an
   adverse inference instruction, the court prospectively holds that a district
   court must issue explicit findings of bad faith and prejudice before giving
   the instruction; here, the court believes the district court engaged in the
   necessary consideration even though it did not issue explicit findings of
   bad faith and prejudice; in light of the overwhelming evidence of bad
   faith which was before the court, the failure to issue the explicit findings
   was harmless error; district court erred in awarding plaintiff
   compensation defendant received for work unrelated to plaintiff as such
   an award would place plaintiff in a better position than it would have
   enjoyed had defendant not breached her employment agreement. Judge
   Shepherd, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
  
112943P.pdf   01/15/2013  United States  v.  Carlous Lindell Daily
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-2943
                          and No:  11-3196
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Arnold, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 allows a court to
   consider plain error that affects substantial right and provides a basis for
   the district court to notice plain error sua sponte and give relief; new
   sentence imposed was not unreasonable. Judge Colloton, concurring in
   part and dissenting in part.
  
113336P.pdf   01/15/2013  Michael Argenyi  v.  Creighton University
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3336
                          and No:  11-3461
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. District court erred in
   determining plaintiff's allegations were unsupported; Section 504 of the
   Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
   required defendant to provide reasonable auxiliary aids and services to
   afford plaintiff, a hearing impaired student in its medical program,
   meaningful access or an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit as his
   nondisabled peers; the court erred in granting defendant's motion for
   summary judgment after concluding plaintiff had failed to show his
   requested accommodations were necessary as required by the ADA, as
   the evidence at this stage of the case supported his claim that he was
   unable to follow lectures or communicate with patients without the
   requested accommodation; reversed and remanded for further
   proceedings.
  
113751P.pdf   01/15/2013  Christopher Freitas  v.  Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3751
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton,
   Circuit Judge]
   Civil case - Consumer law. Accepting as true all factual allegations in
   the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor,
   they failed to state plausible claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and
   promissory estoppel, and the district court did not err in dismissing the
   suit.
  
121339P.pdf   01/15/2013  United States  v.  Christopher Grant
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1339
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton,
   Circuit Judge]
   Criminal case - Sentencing. District court provided no justification for
   its newly amended sentence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2), which
   placed defendant in the middle of the amended guideline range when he
   had previously been sentenced (and resentenced) at the bottom of the
   applicable ranges; the court abused its discretion by failing to provide its
   rationale for the sentence and the matter is remanded for further
   proceedings. Chief Judge Riley, dissenting.
  
121627P.pdf   01/15/2013  United States  v.  Raymond Standafer
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1627
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton,
   Circuit Judge]
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not substantively
   unreasonable.
  
122214U.pdf   01/15/2013  Katheryne Polter  v.  Michael J. Astrue
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2214
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Gruender and Benton,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Social Security. Denial of benefits affirmed.
  
122237U.pdf   01/15/2013  United States  v.  Damon O'Neil
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2237
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Benton,
   Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient
   to show defendant conspired to distribute crack; because of his prior drug
   convictions the district court did not err in sentencing defendant to life in
   prison upon its own finding he conspired to distribute 280 grams of crack
   in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A).