Text Size:
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
161697P.pdf 07/25/2017 Dorian Johnson v. City of Ferguson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1697 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In this action arising out of the incident which led to the shooting death of Michael Brown and the shooting of his companion Dorian Johnson in Ferguson, Missouri, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; plaintiff's complaint alleges that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson used his police car to block Brown and plaintiff and yelled at them to "Get the F--- on the sidewalk;" these allegations are sufficient to constitute a show of authority for Fourth Amendment purposes and a seizure; further, based on the facts alleged in the complaint plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Wilson violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force; at the time of the incident, the law was sufficiently clear to inform a reasonable officer that it was unlawful to use deadly force against nonviolent, suspected misdemeanants who were not fleeing or resisting arrest, posed little or no threat to the officer or the public, did not receive commands to stop and whose only action was to stop walking when the officer's squad car blocked their path; plaintiff has sufficiently alleged supervisory liability by alleging the Chief of Police had notice of unconstitutional acts by his officers and failed to review offense reports and hold officers responsible for excessive force; the City's appeal on municipal liability is dismissed as it not inextricable intertwined with the police officer's and Police Chief's appeal. Judge Wollman, dissenting on the issue of whether Johnson was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 163264P.pdf 07/25/2017 Macomb County Employees v. Stratasys Ltd. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3264 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Securities Fraud. In this action by shareholders alleging defendant made knowingly false promotional statements, the district court did not err in finding the statements the shareholders relied on were so vague and such obvious hyperbole that no reasonable investor would rely on them; nor did the shareholders allege the necessary scienter, and the district court did not err in dismissing the action. 163382P.pdf 07/25/2017 Kenneth Castleberry v. USAA U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3382 and No: 16-3482 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
[PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. The district court erred when it found appellants' counsel violated Rule 11 by dismissing this putative class action for the allegedly improper purpose of seeking a more favorable forum and avoiding an adverse decision; counsel did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) in stipulating to a dismissal of the action and counsel had at least a colorable legal argument that the district court's approval was not needed under Rule 23(e) to voluntarily dismiss the claims of the putative class; as there was no Rule 11 violation, the court erred in reprimanding counsel as a sanction for the violation. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 163389P.pdf 07/25/2017 Kirk Vester v. Daniel Hallock U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3389 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendant Hallock used excessive force - an arm-bar technique - in effecting plaintiff's arrest, the district court did not err in granting Hallock summary judgment based on qualified immunity as based on the circumstances Hallock confronted on arriving on the scene, his use of the arm-bar fell short of the level of force required to constitute a constitutional violation. 163490P.pdf 07/25/2017 James Gretter v. Gretter Autoland, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3490 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
[PUBLISHED] [Arnold, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bankruptcy. Appeal was moot as the court could no longer grant any effectual relief to a prevailing part due a change in circumstances regarding the underlying sales agreement. 163524U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Jennifer Gresham U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3524 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a special condition in defendant's supervised release requiring her to live in the District. 163525U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Mario Murillo-Mora U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3525 and No: 16-3570 and No: 16-3663 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal cases - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant Murillo-Mora's motion to compel the government to file a substantial-assistance motion because his motion to compel failed to comply with Local Rule 7(d); the district court did err in sentencing defendant Murillo-Mora without giving him his right of allocution, and his sentence is vacated and his case remanded for resentencing; defendant Gonzalez-Torres's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering his post-arrest drug dealing in determining sentence; the district court's comments concerning possible future amendments to the guidelines and what effect they might have on defendant Richardson's sentence are irrelevant and Richardson's sentence - which he does not contest - is affirmed. 163555P.pdf 07/25/2017 Matthew Akins v. Daniel Knight U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3555 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not abuse her discretion in denying plaintiff's recusal motion, and her action in ruling on the motion herself did not violate the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 144; the district court's orders granting certain defendants' motions to dismiss and denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment are affirmed without comment. 163581U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Zachary Love U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3581 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived any claim of error with respect to drug quantity by withdrawing his objection to the calculation at sentencing; the district court did not plainly err in calculating defendant's criminal history score; defendant's below-Guidelines-range sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 163612P.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Cowan Godfrey U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3612 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The court's comments at sentencing did not show that it had improperly shifted the burden of proving self-defense to the defendant; the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based on his false denial of his relevant conduct; the record showed the district court amply considered the sentencing guidelines in determining sentence; the district court provided an adequate explanation of its sentencing decision; the district court's decision to impose an upward variance was not an abuse of its discretion, and defendant's 120-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable; where the district court found defendant had a history of abusing alcohol, the imposition of a special condition prohibiting defendant from using alcohol or entering bars was not an abuse of the court's discretion. 163882P.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Victor Maldonado U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3882 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in applying an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(a)(2) based on its determination that defendant had two prior controlled substance convictions; defendant possessed the firearm in connection with another offense, and the court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6) - see U.S. v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014) 163918U.pdf 07/25/2017 Lydia Martin v. Arkansas Department of Health U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3918 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendant's judgment affirmed without comment. 163946P.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Phillip Bradley Sadler U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3946 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's above-guidelines sentence was based on his extensive and violent criminal history, the failure of past sentences to deter his criminal conduct and the need to protect the public; the court's passing remark that defendant was exactly the type of defendant Congress had in mind when it passed the Armed Career Criminal Act did not undermine the court's recognition - on the record - that defendant did not qualify as an armed career criminal under Johnson. 164297U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Theresa Morales U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-4297 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the record supported the district court's decision to impose a role enhancement rather than the role reduction defendant sought. 164336U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Jaime Guerrero-Robledo U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-4336 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The appeal waiver in the case is valid and applicable to defendant's argument that his sentence is unreasonable; the court will enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. 164533U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Byron Gorman U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-4533 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence falls within the scope of his appeal waiver, and the appeal is dismissed. 164572U.pdf 07/25/2017 United States v. Allen Gailliot U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-4572 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
