OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Tuesday May 03, 2016 ] The most recent opinions are for: [ 05/03/2016 ]  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.133676P.pdf 05/03/2016 LaMonte Martin v. Jessica Symmes U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3676 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. See Martin v. Smith, No. 15-6030 (March 7, 2016). For this court's prior opinion in the matter, see Martin v. Symmes, 782 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2015). On remand, this court's vacates Part I of its opinion holding Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Part II of the court's opinion affirming the district court's rejection of Martin's challenge to the prosecution's strike of a juror is reaffirmed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.151004P.pdf 05/03/2016 United States v. Fernando Martinez U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1004 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
[PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The government concedes defendant is no longer a career offender under the residual clause of Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines as his conviction for escape is no longer a crime of violence following the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct 2551 (2015); however, the court's alternative sentence is substantively unreasonable because the degree of the variance - from a guidelines range of 121-151 months to range of 262-327 months - was not supported by the factors cited by the district court. Judge Loken, concurring.151317P.pdf 05/03/2016 Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1317 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Bye, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The district court erred in denying class certification on the ground the class was not ascertainable as the fax logs in the case showing the numbers that received each fax are objective criteria that make the recipient clearly ascertainable; the proposed class also meets the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23; the judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.152085P.pdf 05/03/2016 United States v. Eddie Denton U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2085 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
[PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant defendant the maximum reduction available under Section 3582(c)(2); the court considered the 3553(a) factors and its sentencing decision was not inconsistent with its prior sentencing decision.152319P.pdf 05/03/2016 Michael Fiorito v. United States U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2319 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Beam, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not violate Fiorito's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it granted his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing; because Fiorito was represented by counsel and received counsel's advice, he did not waive his right to counsel and the district court had no duty to conduct a Faretta hearing; the record at the Section 2255 hearing showed Fiorito understood the dangers of abandoning his plea agreement as his lawyer repeatedly advised him against withdrawing the plea and warned him he faced a substantially longer sentence if he went to trial.152329P.pdf 05/03/2016 Randall Thompson v. CIR U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2329 The United States Tax Court
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Melloy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Tax Court. The Tax Court did not err in dismissing the taxpayers' challenge to the penalty issue in the case for lack of jurisdiction as they had withdrawn their challenge to the penalty issue earlier in the litigation and the matter had become moot.