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.
123330P.pdf 12/09/2013 Dakota Foundry, Inc. v. Tromley Industrial Holdings U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3330 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - arbitration. District court's order denying motion to compel arbitration is affirmed, as Tromley cannot establish the necessary consent to bind Dakota to arbitration clause because the arbitration provision was not readily available to Dakota and Dakota did not have a reasonable opportunity to reject it. In addendum to the agreements, likewise, the parties did not mutually assent to modify their agreement to include the arbitration provision. 123651P.pdf 12/09/2013 Luis Antonio Garcia-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3651 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - immigration. Because racketeering conviction constituted a conviction for an aggravated felony and the guilty plea constituted an admission to violating acts relating to a controlled substance and to a crime involving moral turpitude, the Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in concluding alien was ineligible for adjustment of status. 131122P.pdf 12/09/2013 United States v. Jose Diaz U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-1122 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Chief Judge Riley, Author, with Bye and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. The district court did not err in finding Diaz was not in custody when he was interviewed by police officers, as a reasonable person in Diaz's position would have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. The district court did not err in refusing to submit a duress or coercion jury instruction, as the district court correctly determined Diaz failed to show he was under a threat at all, much less a threat of death or serious bodily injury, and he had various opportunities to seek help and elected not to do so. The district court did not err in denying Diaz's motion for judgment of acquittal, as the government presented strong direct and circumstantial evidence that Diaz knowingly took part in the conspiracy as a drug courier. The district court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in denying safety valve relief, as the district court concluded Diaz failed to provide completely and truthfully all the evidence and information he had and because his testimony was internally inconsistent. 131298U.pdf 12/09/2013 United States v. Christian Maldonado U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-1298 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Record shows the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors in sentencing at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Because there were no significant procedural errors and the sentence was substantively reasonable, the sentence is affirmed. 132198U.pdf 12/09/2013 United States v. Verne Moore U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-2198 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings and properly denied Moore's motion to suppress. The within-Guidelines-range sentence was not unreasonable. 132417U.pdf 12/09/2013 United States v. Steven Evans U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-2417 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - commitment. District court's findings in support of commitment order under 18 U.S.C. sec. 4246 are not clearly erroneous and district court's order is affirmed without comment. 132548U.pdf 12/09/2013 David Stebbins v. Legal Aid of Arkansas U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-2548 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Bye, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - reconsideration. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to set aside judgment because no exceptional circumstances warranted relief from the judgment.