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.
161381P.pdf   04/05/2017  United States  v.  Dwight Cooke
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1381
                          and No:  16-1738
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport   
   [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The appropriate remedy for a 
   violation of Criminal Rule 5(a)(1)(A) is not dismissal of an indictment, 
   but suppression of evidence illegally obtained as a result of the 
   violation; defendant Cooke can point to no such evidence (his only claim 
   being the delay impacted appointment of counsel and trial preparation 
   time) and the type of prejudice he asserts is not addressed by the rule; 
   in any event, the court postponed the trial date to give his counsel 
   adequate time to prepare; as a result, there was no prejudice and the 
   court did not err in denying his motion for dismissal for a supposed 
   violation of Rule 5; claim the time between indictment and trial violated 
   the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial rejected, given the length of 
   the delay and the complexity of the case, and the fact that two of the 
   continuances were requested by defendant Cooke's counsel; no error in 
   granting an upward departure at sentencing based on under-represented 
   criminal history and the seriousness of Cooke's offenses; the parties' 
   agreement that a 2015 assault on defendant Cooke's girlfriend was 
   nonrelevant conduct was not binding on the district court and it could 
   exercise its discretion to consider the conduct in determining to grant an 
   upward variance. Defendant Cantu failed to move to suppress her text 
   messages and had waived her right to present the issue on appeal, even as 
   plain error; Speedy Trial Act claim was also waived as defendant never 
   moved to dismiss the case; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
   related to the Speedy Trial Act claim should be raised in a habeas action; 
   evidence was sufficient to support Cantu's conviction for conspiracy. 
  
163163P.pdf   04/05/2017  United States  v.  Mark Allen Sullivan
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3163
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen   
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Kelly and Murphy, Circuit Judges, and 
   Magnuson, District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The analysis the district court provided for 
   its decision to depart upwards from Criminal History Category II to 
   Category VI does not adequately explain and support such a significant 
   departure, and this procedural error requires a remand for resentencing on 
   the existing record; defendant's challenge to his restitution order is 
   barred by his appeal waiver.