Text Size:
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
152937P.pdf 06/15/2017 Douglas Sellner v. MAT Holdings, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2937 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Riley, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Supervisor's comment that plaintiff would be "on the street" if he did not "get creative with [his]documentation" concerning a potentially defective product provided a specific link between plaintiff's protected conduct and his termination; the comment was sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action, and the district court erred in granting the employer summary judgment on plaintiff's Whistleblower Act claim. 161720P.pdf 06/15/2017 United States v. Frank Whitbeck U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1720 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Restitution. The time limit on criminal appeals is a claims-processing rule and defendant's untimely appeal did not present a jurisdictional bar to the panel's consideration of the appeal; the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act does not provide a district court with authority to reduce the amount of a restitution obligation to match the value of a negotiated settlement with the victim in a civil proceeding; as a result, the district court did not have authority to grant defendant's request to deem the restitution obligation discharged if he paid the negotiated settlement; the district court's order denying discharge did not foreclose defendant from seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664(j)(2). 161856P.pdf 06/15/2017 Joseph Sarachek v. Luana Savings Bank U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1856 and No: 16-1955 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that true overdrafts were debt and payments to cover them were recoverable as preferential transfers; the payments did not qualify as contemporaneous exchanges for new value, or as debts and transfers in the ordinary course of business or as transfers creating security interests; bankruptcy court's decision to base the bank's liability on the uncorrected balances is affirmed; no error in calculating the bank's liability on the basis of two "netted" accounts; transfer of funds between the netted accounts was not a transfer for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before the transfer was made, and it was not avoidable. 163921U.pdf 06/15/2017 United States v. Dewuan Williams U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3921 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not unreasonable. 164218U.pdf 06/15/2017 Arkansas Warehouse, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramic & Plastic U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-4218 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Affirmed without comment. 166037P.pdf 06/15/2017 Susan H. Mello v. Paul M. Wojciechowski U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-6037 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Nail, Author, with Kressel and Shodeen, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in affirming debtors' second amended plan without a hearing, as the bankruptcy court is in the best position to determine whether an evidentiary hearing on the issue of good faith is necessary; the bankruptcy court did not err in overruling Mello's objections to the second amended plan and confirming the plan.
