OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Saturday July 30, 2016 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY The most recent opinions are for: [ 07/29/2016 ]  
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.
152172P.pdf  07/29/2016  Missourians for Fiscal, etc.  v.  James Klahr
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2172
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Loken and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Election law.In action seeking to declare unconstitutional the provision of Missouri Revised Statute Section 130.011(8) which requires campaign committees to be formed at least 30 days before the date of an election, plaintiff had standing to challenge the provisions of the statute because plaintiff's complaint alleged that it engaged in self-censorship to comply with the provision and its decision to chill its speech in light of the statute was objectively reasonable, given the fees and penalties provided for in the statute; the case is not moot even though the 2014 election has passed, as the defendants can, at any time, assess fees for plaintiff's violation of the formation deadline established by the statute; further the action was not moot under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness; the district court erred, however, in dismissing the complaint on the ground the claims were not ripe as plaintiff's allegations that it had suffered actual harm due to self-censorship dispenses with any ripeness concerns. Judge Arnold, dissenting.
152348P.pdf  07/29/2016  United States  v.  Thomas Krebs
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2348
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
[PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Moody, District Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's argument that his prior conviction for indecent contact with a child does not satisfy the definitions of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse or abusive sexual conduct found in a separate statutory chapter (Chapter 109A), so that his conviction should not trigger the sentencing enhancement in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b)(2), is foreclosed by circuit precedent - see U.S. v. Sonnenberg, 556 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2009).
152407U.pdf  07/29/2016  United States  v.  Daphne Keeble
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2407
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not plainly err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based on defendant's actions in misleading the court regarding her restitution payments.
152457P.pdf  07/29/2016  United States  v.  Doyle Smith
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2457
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville   
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court's decision in this case to deny defendant's request to represent himself because he had failed to comply with prescribed pretrial procedures and might be planning to raise arguments the district court would consider "improper" violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right of self-representation; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
152950P.pdf  07/29/2016  United States  v.  Jamal Aden
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2950
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
[PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in calculating the amount of the loss in this SNAP fraud case or in ordering restitution in that amount (minus certain sums already repaid by other participants); defendant has already served his eight-month sentence, and even his appeal regarding the reasonableness of the sentence were not moot, the court would find it was not an abuse of the district court's discretion.
152962P.pdf  07/29/2016  United States  v.  Tony Wardlow
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-2962
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
[PUBLISHED] [Moody, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence of the victim's sexual behavior was properly excluded under Rule 412; the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 by excluding evidence regarding defendant's characterization and name calling of the victim; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2A3.1 for conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a); no error in imposing and enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.5(b) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.
161386U.pdf  07/29/2016  United States  v.  Marvin Rivera Fuentes
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-1386
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.