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.