for the Eighth Circuit

152789P.pdf   06/23/2017  Morgan Larson  v.  Ferrellgas Partners
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2789
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, for the Court En Banc] 
   Civil case - Sherman Act. For the panel opinion in the matter, see In re 
   Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 834 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2016). In 
   this action by a group of direct purchasers who bought propane tanks from 
   defendants for resale, alleging defendants conspired to reduce the amount 
   of propane in the tanks while maintaining the price in violation of 
   Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the district court erred in dismissing the 
   claims as barred by the statute of limitations; under applicable law, each 
   sale to the plaintiffs in a price-fixing conspiracy starts the statutory 
   period running again, and plaintiffs' allegations of a price-fixing 
   conspiracy were sufficient to plead a continuing violation which restarted 
   the statute of limitations. Judge Shepherd, dissenting, joined by Judge 
   Wollman and Judge Loken; Judge Kelly joins portions of the dissent. 
  
161417P.pdf   06/23/2017  Sprint Communications Co.  v.  Elizabeth Jacobs
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1417
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Telecommunications Act of 1996. For the court's prior 
   opinions in the matter, see Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Jacobs, 690 F.3d 864 
   (8th Cir. 2012) and Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Jacobs, 798 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 
   2015). The Act does not preempt the Iowa Utility Board's authority to 
   compel Sprint to pay intrastate access charges to Windstream for its 
   delivery of the nonnomadic, intrastate long-distance VIOP calls at issue. 
  
162698U.pdf   06/23/2017  United States  v.  John Norris
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2698
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Melloy, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant voluntarily waived his right to 
   counsel at his resentencing when he decided to proceed pro se after the 
   district court denied his request for an attorney not paid by the federal 
   government and possibly not belonging to any bar association; the district 
   court adequately warned defendant of the dangers of self-representation 
   and his waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and voluntary. 
  
163283U.pdf   06/23/2017  United States  v.  Samuel Irvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3283
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam -Sentencing. The district court did not abuse 
   its discretion by departing upward based on its determination that 
   defendant's criminal history was under-represented, and defendant's 
   sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 
  
163649P.pdf   06/23/2017  United States  v.  Antuan Gaines
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3649
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Gruender, Circuit Judge, and Schreier, 
   District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support 
   defendant's felon-in-possession conviction; evidence of defendant's gang 
   membership was relevant to show why officers were present and took the 
   actions they did and to establish defendant's motive and intent; brief 
   expert testimony sharing only well-known generalities about gangs' 
   involvement in illegal activities did not tip the scales so much as to 
   constitute an abuse of discretion or unfair prejudice. 
  
164229P.pdf   06/23/2017  United States  v.  Melvano Moore
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4229
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in rejecting 
   defendant's request for a sentence reduction under Guidelines Sec. 
   2K2.1(b)(2) as defendant did not present any evidence that the firearms in 
   question were used for sporting purposes and his own admissions showed the 
   firearms were not possessed solely for sporting or collections purposes; 
   no error in imposing a special condition of supervision requiring anger 
   management counseling where defendant had a prior conviction for making 
   terroristic threats to his ex-girlfriend. 
  
171253U.pdf   06/23/2017  Joseph Flying Horse  v.  James Hansen
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1253
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. That portion of plaintiff's 
   complaint which sought damages for the time period from when a detainer 
   expired until when his parole was revoked was not barred by Heck because, 
   as to that time period, a favorable judgment on his section 1983 claims 
   would not render invalid his parole revocation or any other conviction, 
   sentence or judgment; the district court erred, therefore, in dismissing 
   this portion of the claim; the remainder of plaintiff's claims were barred 
   by Heck, and the district court properly dismissed them.