OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Thursday February 11, 2016 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY The most recent opinions are for: [ 02/10/2016 ]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.143877P.pdf 02/10/2016 United States v. Anthony Davis U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3877 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for embezzling union funds; no error in rejecting defendant's proposed jury instruction defining "unauthorized expenditure;" no error in refusing to admit irrelevant checks and invoices; court's decision to call a three-day continuance during the trial because of the death of a juror's relative was not plain error.151302P.pdf 02/10/2016 NLRB v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1302 and No: 15-2039 National Labor Relations Board
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Labor law. The Board's order that Seedorff violated National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by repudiating a valid pre-hire Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and by failing to abide by the hiring hall and benefit provisions of the contract will not be enforced as the Board's analysis was contrary to the Act and pre-hire CBAs as construed in prior judicial decisions and the NLRB's own precedents.151358P.pdf 02/10/2016 United States v. Craig Goettsch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1358 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
[PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in imposing a special condition of defendant's supervised release which forbids him from possessing a computer with internet facilities or a device with photographic capabilities without the approval of his probation officer as the record showed defendant had downloaded thousands of child pornography images and shared them over a computer network, and the order permitted him to use a computer for proper purposes with the approval of his probation officer.151630P.pdf 02/10/2016 United States v. Lorena Morales U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1630 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
[PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine; the district court did not plainly err in not striking, sua sponte, a superseding indictment because it eliminated certain other defendants from a count; claim that closing arguments denied defendant a fair trial rejected; challenge to seating the jury because it was too "pro-police" waived as defedant failed to raise any objection to the seating of the jury; the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; district court discussed the proper 3553(a) factors and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence; no error in denying safety-valve relief as defendant failed to show she ever truthfully provided the government all information about the charged offense.151838P.pdf 02/10/2016 Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. James P. Dolan U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1838 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Bye, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Securities. The district court erred in dismissing this putative class action on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege scienter under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, thereby precluding secondary liability under Section 20(a), as the allegations of the complaint, taken as true established that the company's financial instability was, at least, so obvious that defendant must have been aware of it; defendant's statements about "double digit" growth and "lumpiness" were not protected by the Securities Exchange Act's safe-harbor provisions as the statements about the company's expected performance were material and were not accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; the district court did not err in finding no loss-causation for one period covered by the complaint.