Opinions are for Thursday, November 16, 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.

163618P.pdf     11/16/2017  United States  v.  Kennett McElderry
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3618
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Murphy, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion in 
   failing to consider the sentences of other similarly situated defendants. 
   Although the sentence-disparity arguments were properly raised in the 
   district court, there is no procedural requirement that a district judge 
   must compare and contrast the defendant under consideration with a similar 
   offenders sentenced by a different judge; the district court did not abuse 
   its discretion and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. 
  
163626U.pdf     11/16/2017  United States  v.  Jeremy Saul
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3626
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Murphy, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentencing. District court did not clearly err in imposing 
   a two-level enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2K2.1(B)(4)(A) because it 
   was undisputed that the possessed firearm was stolen; did not clearly err 
   in finding Saul possessed the gun "in connection with" with the felony 
   offense in Iowa Code 724.4(1) to support enhancement under sec. 
   2K2.1(b)(6)(B); and did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to 
   downward variance. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 
  
163888P.pdf     11/16/2017  Azim Aziz  v.  Allstate Insurance Company
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3888
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil Case - diversity. District court's grant of judgment as a matter of 
   law following trial for breach of contract of insurance claim is affirmed. 
   Homeowners failed to present evidence of value of real property before or 
   after the fire and bankruptcy filing was insufficient to establish value. 
   Homeowners also failed to present sufficient evidence of personal 
   property's value immediately before the fire, as proof-of-loss list of 
   personal property did not account for deterioration, obsolescence or other 
   depreciation. The vexatious-refusal claim likewise fails where there is no 
   judgment on the insurance policy. 
  
164334P.pdf     11/16/2017  United States  v.  Candice Davis
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4334
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentencing. Defendant's objection to references in 
   presentence investigation report identifying fifty individuals she 
   recruited is not material to an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 3B1.1(b) 
   because the enhancement required only involvement of five or more 
   participants; defendant stipulated to involvement of 15 participants and 
   stipulated to enhancement under sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Thus, any error in 
   overruling defendant's objection was harmless. District court did not err 
   in finding defendant was involved in the scheme before 2015, as agent had 
   materials and reports since 2013. As for enhancement under sec. 3B1.1(b) 
   (manager or supervisor), evidence showed defendant exercised control over 
   at least one participant and thus did not err in applying three-level 
   enhancement. Denial of two-level reduction for acceptance of 
   responsibility was not error in light of defendant's multiple objections 
   to the PSR. 
  
164347U.pdf     11/16/2017  United States  v.  Willie Robinson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4347
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Chief Judge Smith, Melloy, and Gruender, 
   Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. District court did not 
   abuse its discretion in imposing 20 months imprisonment without additional 
   supervision after considering circumstances. District court is not 
   required to respond to every argument advanced by a defendant, including 
   consideration of defendant's mental health issues. 
  
164354U.pdf     11/16/2017  United States  v.  Randy Beltramea
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4354
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Chief Judge Smith, Wollman, and 
   Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentencing. The district court did not procedurally err in 
   imposing a 24-month sentence to run consecutive to the previously imposed 
   111-month sentence, as the district court carefully considered every 
   factor in section 3553(a), and discussed each of the factors. The 
   sentence, within the calculated guidelines range, is presumptively 
   reasonable. 
  
164473U.pdf     11/16/2017  United States  v.  Michael Ayala
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4473
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Loken, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - Anders. Appeal waiver is enforceable, as record 
   demonstrates Ayala entered into plea agreement and waiver knowingly and 
   voluntarily and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the 
   waiver. 
  
171293U.pdf     11/16/2017  Streambend Properties II, LLC  v.  Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1293
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Loken, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil Case - diversity. In fourth appeal in this matter, the district 
   court did not erred in denying motion for relief from judgment under Rule 
   60(b)(6) or a renewed motion for substitution of parties under Rule 25(c), 
   as these motion were improper attempts to relitigate issues already 
   decided. There was no error in district court's implicit refusal to grant 
   leave to amend complaint or conduct further discovery. 
  
171580U.pdf     11/16/2017  Ger Lee  v.  Jefferson B. Sessions, III
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1580
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Loken, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Petition for Review - immigration. In claim of due process violation, the 
   Board of Immigration Appeals did not deprive Lee of fundamental fairness 
   by referring his appeal to a single member; his speedy-trial contentions 
   were precluded by a prior dismissal of a habeas petition; and his other 
   claims are baseless. The denial of relief under the Convention Against 
   Torture fails, as Lee's status as a stateless person did not excuse his 
   burden to show why he would be tortured if her were returned to either 
   country. 
  
171640U.pdf     11/16/2017  Christoper Rogers  v.  Nancy Berryhill
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1640
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Colloton, Bowman, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil Case - social security. Substantial evidence supports denial of 
   disability insurance benefits. Administrative law judge's credibility 
   determinations were supported by good reasons and substantial evidence and 
   are entitled to deference. The residual functional capacity determination, 
   including what weight to accord the treating physician and the consulting 
   physician was proper and Rogers fell short of meeting his burden of 
   establishing his residual functional capacity was more restricted than the 
   ALJ determined. 
  
176015P.pdf     11/16/2017  Zahn Law Firm, P.A.  v.  Ronald Baker
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-6015
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Nail, Author, with Schermer and Dow, Bankruptcy Judges] 
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel - remand to state court. The bankruptcy court 
   did not abuse its discretion in remanding to the state court an adversary 
   proceeding brought by a law firm against the debtor alleging breach of 
   contract and account stated. The bankruptcy court properly considered and 
   addressed each of the listed criteria for consideration. Debtor challenges 
   the bankruptcy court's findings on four of the criteria: the effect on the 
   administration of the estate; the difficulty or unsettled nature of the 
   law; the jurisdictional basis; and the likelihood the adversary 
   proceedings involved forum shopping. We agree with the bankruptcy court's 
   analysis.