OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Monday March 30, 2015 ] The most recent opinions are for: [ 03/30/2015 ]  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.141531U.pdf 03/30/2015 United States v. Pamela Wood U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1531 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case -Sentencing. Defendant waived her right to appeal her sentence, and her appeal is dismissed.141803U.pdf 03/30/2015 United States v. Glen Baughman U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1803 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentence. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered in this direct appeal.141929P.pdf 03/30/2015 Streambend Properties II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1929 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. For the court's prior opinion in the case see Streambend Props. II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Mpls., LLC, 451 F. App'x 627 (8th Cir. 2012). District court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit plaintiff to re-add a party whose prior dismissal on the merits was not challenged in the earlier appeal; plaintiff's Count alleging violation of Section 1703(a)(2)(A)&(C) did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) because it failed to plead intentional wrongdoing (scienter) and the district court did not err in dismissing the Count; Rule 8 governed the Section 1703(a)(2)(B) allegations in Count I of the complaint, and it was error to dismiss them for failure to satisfy Rule 9; however, the Count failed to state a plausible claim and the dismissal is affirmed; no error in refusing to permit further amendment of the complaint; no error in granting defendant Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment as there was no evidence it made any representations or was involved in the sale of property to plaintiff; the district court did not err in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.142624U.pdf 03/30/2015 Henry Lazniarz v. CIR U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2624 The United States Tax Court
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tax. Tax Court finding of tax deficiency and penalty affirmed.143200U.pdf 03/30/2015 United States v. Julian Dinnwiddie U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3200 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Anders case. As defendant did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court, his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea cannot be considered on appeal; defendant agreed to an enhancement for role in the offense and cannot challenge the application of that enhancement in this appeal; the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.143297U.pdf 03/30/2015 Lisa Murphy v. Smith U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3297 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
[UNPUBLISHED] [Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. Defendant's judgment on plaintiff's excessive force claim affirmed without comment.143464U.pdf 03/30/2015 United States v. Patrick Bailey U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3464 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.