as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
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).