Text Size:
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
153540P.pdf 04/14/2017 Elizabeth McLeod v. General Mills, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3540 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Strand, District Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. In a dispute over whether terminated employees knowingly and voluntarily waived their rights and claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by accepting benefits and signing waivers, the district court erred in denying General Mills' motion to compel arbitration; no contrary Congressional command overrides the Federal Arbitration Act's mandate to enforce the parties' agreement to arbitrate ADEA claims. 153607P.pdf 04/14/2017 Glen Allen v. United States U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3607 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Prisoner case - habeas. For the court's opinion in Allen's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Allen, 705 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2013). Allen failed to show a substantial likelihood that he would have accepted the offer to plead guilty pursuant to the more favorable terms offered prior to the suppression hearing if his attorney had advised him of the possibility of a life sentence; the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing. 153611P.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. Robert King U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3611 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Counsel stated there was no objection to the admission of an exhibit, and any argument regarding its admission was waived; because trial counsel never confronted defendant's prior attorney with his inconsistent statements pursuant to Rule 613(b), trial counsel could not have testified at trial that the attorney had made prior inconsistent statements to her, and, as a result, the district court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial sua sponte based on an an argument that his current attorney had to testify; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal based on his "public-authority" defense; the district court did not err in denying defendant's untimely motions for retesting the methamphetamine seized in the case; no error in imposing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on defendant's perjury at trial; no error in denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility where defendant went to trial, put the government to its burden of proof and perjured himself at trial. 153940U.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. Jose Ricardo Ocanas U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3940 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge and Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court weighed the 3553(a) factors,including those mitigating factors argued by defendant, and did not impose an unreasonable sentence. 153991P.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. Lewis Pate U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3991 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, and Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's earlier opinion in the matter, see U.S. v. Pate, 754 F.3d 553 (8th Cir. 2014). After the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson, the district court vacated Pate's 200-month sentence and sentenced him to 120 months. The district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)for possession of the firearm in connection with another felony; any error in the classification of defendant's prior conviction for third-degree burglary was harmless in light of the district court's statements that it would impose the same sentence if the offense was later determined not to be a crime of violence. 161611P.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. William Aossey, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1611 and No: 16-1688 and No: 16-1761 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
[PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Two provisions of the Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. Sections 674 and 607(e), did not remove this criminal prosecution from the district court's jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Section 3231 161668P.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. Brandon Sykes U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1668 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
[PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in imposing enhancements for role in the offense, threatening or using violence and maintaining a drug house; any error in calculating the drug quantity was harmless, as the argued-for reduction would not change defendant's advisory guidelines range of 360 months to life. 161960U.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. Bessie Anderson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1960 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's explanation of its sentencing decision, while brief, was adequate in this case, as the record shows the court considered the parties' arguments and determined the circumstances did not warrant a downward variance; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 162056P.pdf 04/14/2017 United States v. Martin Lawrence U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2056 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
[PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not rely on objected-to facts in the presentence report to calculate drug quantity, and the relevant responsive evidence in the case regarding drug amounts had been produced at trial and supported the drug quantity determination; the court properly considered defendant's drug-related activity outside the scope of the conspiracy as relevant conduct; no error in relying on a particular witness's testimony as part of the drug quantity calculation as his testimony had indicia of reliability and the district court made its own independent evaluation of the reliability of the evidence. 163196U.pdf 04/14/2017 Andrew Riggle v. American Enterprise Property U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3196 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. Dismissal modified to be without prejudice. 171339P.pdf 04/14/2017 Tammy Hargett v. St. Bernard's Hospital Inc, et U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 17-1339 and No: 17-1340 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro
[PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Class Action Fairness Act. Under the local controversy exception, the term citizen means the same thing in 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I) as it does in the rest of section 1332 and that definition is not synonymous with "resident." The district court erred in holding that merely alleging a proposed class of Arkansas residents was sufficient to satisfy section 1332(d)(4); it could have met the burden by producing evidence or defining the class to include only Arkansas citizens. Consideration of the amended complaint that redefined the class after removal was error. For purposes of the local-controversy exception in section 1332(d)(7), class citizenship must be determined as of the date of the pleading giving federal jurisdiction. Nothing stated herein means that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The remand order is reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
