OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Tuesday February 21, 2017 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY The most recent opinions are for: [ 02/17/2017 ]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.153694P.pdf 02/17/2017 Mark Neubauer v. FedEx Corporation U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3694 U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. Plaintiff's claim that defendant breached its prior operating agreement with him was properly dismissed as the agreement had expired and no longer controlled their relationship and, in any event, the specific language of the prior agreement foreclosed the claim; plaintiff's second breach-of-contract claim was foreclosed by the language of the agreement; plaintiff's fraud claims were properly dismissed because he failed to plead fraud with the specificity required by Rule 9(b); the parties' relationship was not covered by North Dakota's Franchise Investment Law as the parties' agreement explicitly stated plaintiff was an independent contractor providing transportation services for delivery of defendant's packages and he had not been granted the right to offer or distribute services to customers; the complaint failed to alleged a claim under North Dakota's RICO act.161050U.pdf 02/17/2017 United States v. Kirk Cottom U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1050 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The delayed notice of the Network Investigative Technique warrant did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and did not warrant suppression of the evidence obtained from it- see United States v. Welch, 811 F.3d 275 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2476 (2016); the fact that the government did not preserve the source code used to create and deploy the Network Investigative Technique did not warrant exclusion of the government's experts' testimony as the destruction of the code was not intentional or part of an effort to suppress the truth and all of the experts on both sides testified that the source code information was of little use in determining that the Technique was reliable and repeatable.161317P.pdf 02/17/2017 Diwan, L.L.C. v. Maha-Vishnu Corporation U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1317 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
[PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bankruptcy. Even giving debtor the benefit of the doubt regarding his impairment-of-collateral argument (which both the bankruptcy and district court rejected), the bankruptcy court's alternative basis for rejecting his Chapter 11 plan and dismissing the case - that the plan was not financially feasible - fully supported its decision and the dismissal is affirmed.162284U.pdf 02/17/2017 United States v. Darrell Andersen U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2284 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in determining, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had violated his supervision by using cocaine.162355P.pdf 02/17/2017 United States v. Daniel Morris Johnson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2355 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[PUBLISHED] [Ebinger, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Under the facts of the case and considering the other information contained in the warrant application, the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took nude photos of the minor victim, was not based on stale information; additionally, the information in the application established grounds to believe evidence would be found at defendant's residence; in any event, the Leon good-faith exception prevented suppression of the evidence; even if the district court erred in enhancing defendant's sentence based on his prior Minnesota conviction for sexual conduct in the fifth degree, the district court specifically contemplated the argument and clearly indicated that it would impose the same sentence without the challenged enhancement based on its belief that a lesser sentence would not promote sufficient respect for the law; as a result, any error was harmless, and the sentence is affirmed.