OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Tuesday November 21, 2017 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY The most recent opinions are for: [ 11/20/2017 ]  
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.
164054U.pdf  11/20/2017  United States  v.  Jeffrey Allen Gardner
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-4054
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges, and Goldberg, Judge of the Court of International Trade] Criminal case - Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's bank fraud conviction and conviction for making a false statement to a financial institution; the district court did not err in calculating the amount of the loss for sentencing purposes; the record amply supported the application of an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1 for a management role in the offense.
164252U.pdf  11/20/2017  United States  v.  Jason Claybron
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-4252
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges, and Goldberg, Judge of the Court of International Trade] Criminal case - Criminal law. Omission of certain information about an informant was not so suspect as to vitiate the existence of probable cause and defendant cannot, in any event, show any prejudice from omission of the information as independent facts corroborated the informant's information; the search of a vehicle was not unlawfully prolonged and did not exceed the scope of the consent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of an unrelated drug conspiracy; even if admission of evidence regarding defendant's interview and the behavior of drug traffickers was error, the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony about the interview, and the evidence in this case was overwhelming, making the admission of the evidence harmless; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecution's closing argument regarding defendant's failure to call certain witnesses, as the court gave a curative instruction that no burden fell on defendant.