Text Size:
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
153184P.pdf 02/27/2017 Patricio Guzman-Ortiz v. United States U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3184 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
[PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's opinion affirming Guzman's conviction and sentence, see U.S. v. Chantharath, 705 F.3d 295 (8th Cir. 2013). In this 2255 proceeding, Guzman asserted his counsel's performance at trial was deficient because he failed to competently cross-examine an adverse witness, failed to make a competent closing argument and failed to challenge the drug quantity calculation; counsel's trial strategy concerning the cross-examination and closing argument were reasonable and legitimate and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; further, counsel challenged the drug quantity and his strategy resulted in the district court taking the low end of the ranges to which witnesses testified; a hearing was not required where Guzman's claims were either contradicted by the record or, if accepted as true, would not entitle him to relief. 153192P.pdf 02/27/2017 Edward Blackorby v. BNSF Railway Company U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3192 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
[PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Railroad Safety Act. The district court erred in instructing the jury that plaintiff need not establish intentional retaliation in order to prevail on his claim that his discipline violated the employee-protections provisions of the Act - see Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014); jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. 153532P.pdf 02/27/2017 Kelly Heim v. BNSF Railway Company U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3532 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
[PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Railroad Safety Act. The district court correctly determined that plaintiff must show intentional retaliation in order to prevail on his claim that his discipline violated the employee-protections provisions of the Act, and it did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence of intentional retaliation. See Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co., 768 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2014). 153852U.pdf 02/27/2017 United States v. Mark David McGinley U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3852 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[UNPUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's argument that the court failed to make an express finding of danger before imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.5(b) is rejected as the sentencing transcript makes clear that the court focused on whether defendant presented a continuing danger to the public; defendant failed to object to the district court's explanation of its evaluation of the 3553(a)factors, and his argument that the court gave too much weight to public safety and ignored other factors was not preserved for review; in any event, the court's explanation of its reasoning was more than sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review and the record showed it considered all of the information and argument presented on the factors before making its sentencing decision. 161324P.pdf 02/27/2017 John Young v. Mercer County Commission U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1324 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph
[PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. On plaintiff's claim that defendants breached a lease agreement and denied his budget request for part-time help in retaliation for his complaints that the Commission violated his civil rights by passing an ordinance requiring every county resident to have a permanent 911 address and by assigning him an address he did not desire, defendants were entitled to legislative immunity; the district court properly found that the County Commissioners were entitled to qualified immunity as to their request that the state attorney general review the legality of the lease agreement. Judge Melloy, concurring. 161380U.pdf 02/27/2017 United States v. Jay Littlewind, Sr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1380 U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Kelly and Murphy, Circuit Judges, and Magnuson, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in permitting a forensic interviewer to testify about her interview of the seven year old victim of defendant's sexual abuse, including a description of the protocol she followed; the evidence was relevant background information addressing the process authorities use in their investigation of the offense; in any event, the testimony could not have had more than a slight influence on the outcome of the case, and any possible error in admitting the testimony would have been harmless. Judge Kelly, dissenting. 161402P.pdf 02/27/2017 Rita Lamoureux v. MPSC, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1402 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Ebinger, District Judge] Civil case - Contracts. The parties' contract did not specify a termination date for royalty payments to plaintiff, and the district court properly refused to supply an at-will termination term. 161998P.pdf 02/27/2017 United States v. Dominic Irons U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1998 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Wright, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in determining that defendant's conviction for violence against another inmate in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 217.385, subd. 1, was a predicate violent felony for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act; the district court did not err in using the modified categorical approach in reaching this determination; because the offense was a predicate violent felony under the Act, it was also a crime of violence for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2(a)(1). 162640U.pdf 02/27/2017 Charles Benjamin v. Ward County U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2640 U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendant's summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate-indifference to medical needs claim arising out of his pretrial detention in the Ward County Jail affirmed without comment. 162693U.pdf 02/27/2017 Roque De La Fuente v. Iowa Democratic Party U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2693 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief concerning his participation in the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses was moot; the remainder of his complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. 162844U.pdf 02/27/2017 Michael McConnell v. Carolyn W. Colvin U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2844 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Denial of disability benefits affirmed without comment. 163172U.pdf 02/27/2017 Forest Kingcade v. Tim Trowbridge U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3172 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate-indifference medical care claims; however, the court erred in determining that plaintiff's excessive force and failure-to-intervene claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and those claims are remanded for further proceedings. 163303U.pdf 02/27/2017 United States v. Anthony Dixon U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3303 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not commit any significant procedural error or impose an unreasonable sentence.
