for the Eighth Circuit

121182P.pdf   03/14/2013  Thomas Morelos  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1182
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - habeas. Claim that trial counsel was ineffective
   regarding impeachment and cross-examination rejected; claim of
   ineffective assistance during closing argument is based on an inaccurate
   statement of the government's burden at trial and is rejected; any
   argument that the government did not prove the type of
   methamphetamine involved in the offense is meritless and counsel could
   not be ineffective in deciding not to raise the issue; court concludes that
   counsel's decision not to independently withdraw over the fact that he
   had prosecuted Morales in state court was within the range of
   professional assistance; nor was counsel's decision not to withdraw over
   the suspensions of his licenses in Nebraska and South Dakota beyond the
   range of professional assistance; because all of Morales's grounds for his
   claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are unavailing, he cannot
   show that he suffered any prejudice from the manner in which counsel
   handled his direct appeal; claims of prosecutorial misconduct rejected
   without comment.
  
121462U.pdf   03/14/2013  Mardelle Jerde  v.  JPMorgan Chase Bank
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1462
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Shepherd,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case. Dismissal for failure to state a claim affirmed on the basis
   of this court's prior opinions in Karnatcheva v. J.P. Morgan, 704 F.3d
   545 (8th Cir. 2013) and Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 699 F. 3d
   1027 (8th Cir. 2012).
  
121632P.pdf   03/14/2013  Aaron Deroo  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1632
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - habeas. Government's argument that this case should
   have been dismissed as a second or successive habeas is rejected because
   the present claim had not arisen when the earlier Section 2255 was filed;
   while it had arisen when Deroo filed a Section 2241 with the Seventh
   Circuit, a Section 2255 motion is not a second or successive application
   where the previous petition sought relief under Section 2241; however,
   Deroo could have discovered the claim that his Presentence Report was
   erroneous years before he filed this motion, and the district court did not
   err in concluding it was untimely; Deroo failed to establish the elements
   of equitable tolling.
  
122076P.pdf   03/14/2013  Edgarline Dunbar  v.  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2076
                          and No:  12-2369
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case. Dismissal for failure to state a claim affirmed on the basis of
   this court's prior opinions in Karnatcheva v. J.P. Morgan, 704 F.3d 545
   (8th Cir. 2013) and Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs, LLC 699 F.3d 1027 (8th
   Cir. 2011); district court was well within its discretion to impose
   sanctions where plaintiff's counsel engaged in fraudulent joinder to avoid
   federal jurisdiction and filed a complaint "blatantly premised on the
   show-me-the-note theory'" previously rejected by this court and the
   Minnesota Supreme Court.
  
122310P.pdf   03/14/2013  United States  v.  Martin Wilson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2310
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Gruender,
   Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Sentencing. District court articulated sufficient
   justifications for the imposition of a no-contact provision in defendant's
   supervised release; any error in extending the no-contact order to cover
   defendant's term of imprisonment was harmless as there was no evidence
   that the order had any impact on defendant during his now-completed
   prison sentence.