for the Eighth Circuit

153399P.pdf   03/27/2017  Raul De La Rosa  v.  Mark White
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3399
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Riley and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. The district court erred in denying the 
   defendant State Trooper's motion for summary judgment based on qualified 
   immunity on plaintiff's claim that the Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion 
   to extend a traffic stop while he summoned a drug dog that alerted to 
   plaintiff's truck; a reasonable officer could have believed he had a 
   reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; recent Eighth Circuit cases 
   have found reasonable suspicion upholding the extension of traffic stops 
   relying on similar facts, such as difficulty in answering basic questions 
   on itinerary and lies about criminal history; reversed and remanded with 
   direction to enter summary judgment dismissing all claims against 
   defendant. 
  
161306P.pdf   03/27/2017  United States  v.  Gilberto Ramos
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1306
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Arnold and Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. There was sufficient evidence 
   on the drug charges in the case, but the evidence was insufficient to 
   support defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a 
   firearm as a reasonable jury could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt 
   that defendant had constructive possession of the weapon; the district 
   court erred in admitting an Arkansas Parole Board Waiver of Revocation 
   Form as any probative value the form might have had was outweighed by the 
   risk of unfair prejudice to defendant; however, the error was harmless 
   with respect to defendant's conviction on the drug charges in light of the 
   evidence of his guilt; the court would not reach defendant's arguments 
   regarding the reasonableness of his sentence in light of the reversal of 
   his felon-in-possession conviction. Judge Arnold, concurring. Judge 
   Wollman, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
  
161596P.pdf   03/27/2017  United States  v.  Yahya Jawad
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1596
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in calculating 
   the value of the counterfeit goods in this prosecution for trafficking in 
   counterfeit mark goods; the district court did not err in including all of 
   the goods in a "knock offs" sales event where defendant was in charge of 
   the venue and had organized the event; no error in denying defendant's 
   request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction as defendant had not 
   voluntarily withdrawn from participation in the criminal conduct and had 
   continued his conduct while on pre-trial release; top-of-the-guidelines 
   sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 
  
161982U.pdf   03/27/2017  United States  v.  Ryan Brooks, Sr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1982
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Beam and Murphy, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Argument that the district court abused its 
   discretion by not granting a greater downward variance rejected; the 
   district court considered the factors cited by defendant, such as his 
   health, acceptance of responsibility and devotion to his children, and did 
   not err in giving weight to the seriousness of the criminal conduct in 
   setting the amount of the variance. 
  
162433P.pdf   03/27/2017  United States  v.  Terrance C. Jackson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2433
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Murphy, Circuit Judge, and Montgomery, 
   District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Argument that defendant's 
   in-custody statements should be suppressed because of his drug use and 
   lack of sleep rejected because an officer credibly testified that 
   defendant volunteered certain statements and that they were not made in 
   response to any questions by law enforcement; defendant's responses to 
   limited questions about his current mental and physical state were 
   admissible; response to a question regarding the last time defendant had 
   his hair cut was not admissible as it was asked with the intention of 
   obtaining an incriminating response; however the error in admitting the 
   response was harmless as it was unlikely that this single statement had a 
   major impact on the jury's decision; the district court did not err in 
   refusing to admit four of the eight instances of the victim's prior acts 
   of violence as there was no evidence that the victim had committed two of 
   the acts, evidence concerning one of the acts was cumulative, and one of 
   the incidents, dating back to when the victim and defendant were about 15, 
   was lacking in probative value; constitutional challenge to Rule 29.1 
   regarding the order of closing argument rejected; the district court did 
   not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for sur-rebuttal 
   concerning his claim of self-defense; the district court considered and 
   explicitly rejected defendant's request for a variance under Guidelines 
   Sec. 5K2.10 and defendant's claim that the court erred by failing to 
   consider the request must be rejected; district court did not err in 
   refusing to grant such a variance; the district court did not err in 
   refusing to sua sponte consider a variance based on a proposed amendment 
   to the Guidelines where the amendment would have no effect on the range; 
   no error in denying request to postpone sentencing for a mental health 
   exam as defendant had one in 2010 and there was no reason to believe 
   another exam would produce different results or cause the court to impose 
   a lesser sentence. 
  
163569U.pdf   03/27/2017  United States  v.  Cheyenne Gonzales
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3569
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Beam and Murphy, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in finding 
   defendant had violated his supervision by failing to participate in 
   substance abuse counseling as directed by his probation officer; nor did 
   the court err in finding, based on a sweat patch test, that defendant had 
   violated his supervision by using cocaine.