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.
153858U.pdf   03/30/2017  United States  v.  Adrian Rodriguez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3858
                          and No:  16-1481
                          and No:  16-2768
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. With respect to defendant Ojeda, the district court heard his sentencing arguments and provided an adequate explanation in its Statement of Reasons for the amount of its downward departure; the court weighed the 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the downward departure; nor did his longer sentence create an unwarranted disparity with his co-defendants, given the different quantities of drugs each man was involved with and defendant's role in the offense; where defendant Rodriguez refused to answer any questions about an individual the government believed connected him to the drug conspiracy, he failed to give a complete and accurate accounting of his role in the offense and he did not establish that he was entitled to safety-valve sentencing; assuming the court failed to adequately explain its sentencing decision for defendant Ramirez-Raya, he could not show that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence; nor was his below-guidelines sentence substantively unreasonable. 161980P.pdf 03/30/2017 United States v. Philip Delgrosso U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1980 and No: 16-1981 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in denying defendants' motions for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence as the affidavit defendants rely on would have been inadmissible and had affiant testified, he would have been subject to impeachment based on his seven felony convictions; further, the evidence, even if believed, was not likely to lead to an acquittal; the motion for new trial raising a possible issue of government misconduct in connection with a Brady claim was untimely; even if it had been timely, the material was irrelevant or contradicted by strong evidence and it was not error to deny the request for new trial; no error in giving a willful blindness instruction on the facts present in the case; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant Delgrasso's convictions on drug conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy charges; no error in denying Delgrasso's request for safety-valve sentencing as he had not truthfully provided all information concerning the offenses. 162583U.pdf 03/30/2017 Robert Dinkins v. Correctional Medical Services U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2583 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case. Defendants' judgment affirmed without comment. 162962U.pdf 03/30/2017 United States v. Jaime Moran U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2962 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's claims are based on ineffective assistance of counsel and would not be addressed in this direct appeal. 163493U.pdf 03/30/2017 United States v. Nathan Smith U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3493 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.