for the Eighth Circuit

153694P.pdf   02/17/2017  Mark Neubauer  v.  FedEx Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3694
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Contracts. Plaintiff's claim that defendant breached its 
   prior operating agreement with him was properly dismissed as the agreement 
   had expired and no longer controlled their relationship and, in any event, 
   the specific language of the prior agreement foreclosed the claim; 
   plaintiff's second breach-of-contract claim was foreclosed by the language 
   of the agreement; plaintiff's fraud claims were properly dismissed because 
   he failed to plead fraud with the specificity required by Rule 9(b); the 
   parties' relationship was not covered by North Dakota's Franchise 
   Investment Law as the parties' agreement explicitly stated plaintiff was 
   an independent contractor providing transportation services for delivery 
   of defendant's packages and he had not been granted the right to offer or 
   distribute services to customers; the complaint failed to alleged a claim 
   under North Dakota's RICO act. 
  
161050U.pdf   02/17/2017  United States  v.  Kirk Cottom
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1050
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The delayed notice of the Network 
   Investigative Technique warrant did not violate defendant's Fourth 
   Amendment rights and did not warrant suppression of the evidence obtained 
   from it- see United States v. Welch, 811 F.3d 275 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. 
   denied, 136 S. Ct. 2476 (2016); the fact that the government did not 
   preserve the source code used to create and deploy the Network 
   Investigative Technique did not warrant exclusion of the government's 
   experts' testimony as the destruction of the code was not intentional or 
   part of an effort to suppress the truth and all of the experts on both 
   sides testified that the source code information was of little use in 
   determining that the Technique was reliable and repeatable. 
  
161317P.pdf   02/17/2017  Diwan, L.L.C.  v.  Maha-Vishnu Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1317
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport   
   [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Bankruptcy. Even giving debtor the benefit of the doubt 
   regarding his impairment-of-collateral argument (which both the bankruptcy 
   and district court rejected), the bankruptcy court's alternative basis for 
   rejecting his Chapter 11 plan and dismissing the case - that the plan was 
   not financially feasible - fully supported its decision and the dismissal 
   is affirmed. 
  
162284U.pdf   02/17/2017  United States  v.  Darrell Andersen
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2284
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Melloy, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in 
   determining, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that defendant 
   had violated his supervision by using cocaine. 
  
162355P.pdf   02/17/2017  United States  v.  Daniel Morris Johnson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2355
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Ebinger, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Under the facts of the case 
   and considering the other information contained in the warrant 
   application, the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took nude 
   photos of the minor victim, was not based on stale information; 
   additionally, the information in the application established grounds to 
   believe evidence would be found at defendant's residence; in any event, 
   the Leon good-faith exception prevented suppression of the evidence; even 
   if the district court erred in enhancing defendant's sentence based on his 
   prior Minnesota conviction for sexual conduct in the fifth degree, the 
   district court specifically contemplated the argument and clearly 
   indicated that it would impose the same sentence without the challenged 
   enhancement based on its belief that a lesser sentence would not promote 
   sufficient respect for the law; as a result, any error was harmless, and 
   the sentence is affirmed.