as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
121242U.pdf 01/30/2013 United States v. Justin Bicket U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1242 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm; district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination on other DNA samples as the evidence would have been irrelevant or cumulative. 121777P.pdf 01/30/2013 Heubel Materials Handling Co v. Universal Underwriters Insur U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1777 and No: 12-1951 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Insurance. Because no reservation of rights or conflict of interest entitled Heubel to select its own counsel while continuing to enjoy the coverage benefits of the policy issue by defendant Universal, Heubel breached the policy by refusing to allow Universal to control the defense; Universal suffered substantial prejudice from Heubel's refusal and Universal was justified in denying coverage based on Heubel's breach of the cooperation clause. 122437P.pdf 01/30/2013 United States v. Gilbert Crow Eagle, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2437 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In a prosecution for sexual assault, the district court did not err in permitting the introduction of evidence that defendant has committed previous sexual assaults on family members, as the evidence was relevant due to the similarity of the assaults and was more probative than prejudicial; no error in refusing to permit defendant to introduce evidence that three of the witnesses had allegedly made false sexual assault allegations in the past; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 126050P.pdf 01/30/2013 Raymond Kelley v. Centennial Bank U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-6050 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Schermer, Author, with Federman and Saladino, Bankruptcy Judges]
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it interpreted its prior order and the Chapter 11 plan to mean that debtors were required to convey the real property in question to the bank.