Opinions are for Tuesday, January 23, 2018 

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.

163699P.pdf     01/23/2018  Keith Baranski  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3699
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's prior opinions in the 
   matter, see U.S.v. Baranski, 75 F. App's 566 (8th Cir. 2003) and Baranski 
   v. U.S. 515 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). In this petition for a writ of error 
   coram nobis, Baranski alleged various acts of government misconduct at his 
   trial. Held: a coram nobis petitioner whose motion for Section 2255 relief 
   was denied while he was in custody does not have to obtain authorization 
   from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with 
   Section 2244(b)(3)(B) before filing his writ petition; AEDPA's 
   restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in Section 
   2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner 
   whose motion for Section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in 
   custody. In order to be entitled to relief, Baranski must present newly 
   discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as 
   a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 
   that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the 
   offense; here the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
   concluding that there was no fundamental error warranting issuance of the 
   writ. 
  
172316U.pdf     01/23/2018  United States  v.  Clarence Garretson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-2316
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was substantively 
   reasonable and was not disproportionate to the crimes, given the number of 
   victims, the severity of the abuse and the span of time over which the 
   abuse occurred.