Opinions are for Monday, November 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   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges, 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   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges, 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.