DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
113587P.pdf   11/14/2012  United States  v.  Clarence Rice
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3587
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Taking the jury
   instructions as a whole, the jury was adequately advised of the essential
   elements of the wire fraud charges and the burden of proof required of the
   government; district court did not err in calculating the amount of the loss
   or in ordering restitution; the district court sufficiently explained its
   decision not to depart or vary downward; court would not address the
   reasonableness of the sentence as defendant did not raise the issue in his
   opening brief and thereby waived the issue.
  
121353P.pdf   11/14/2012  United States  v.  Travis Collins
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1353
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Murphy, Circuit Judge, and
   Jackson, District Judge]
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Finding that police officers could
   reasonably conclude that the tenant voluntarily consented to their going
   upstairs in her residence was not clearly erroneous; even if she did not
   give consent, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by going
   upstairs to look for defendant as the officers had a reasonable belief,
   based on her comments, that defendant was present in that portion of the
   residence.
  
126043P.pdf   11/14/2012  John R. Stoebner  v.  San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-6043
                          and No:  12-6044
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Venters, Author, with Federman and Saladino, Bankruptcy Judges]
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Bankruptcy Court did not err in finding
   that payments defendants received from the debtors in the 90 days prior
   to the bankruptcy petition were preferential and avoidable under 11
   U.S.C. Sec. 547(b); however, the matter must be remanded for further
   proceedings regarding the amount of "new value" credits defendants
   should receive.