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.
132729P.pdf   03/23/2015  Andre Porter  v.  Dave Dormire
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2729
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 
   medical treatment claims through the Department's grievance procedure and 
   the district court did not err in dismissing the action; because dismissal 
   is mandatory, the district court erred in granting the defendants' motion 
   for summary judgment, and the summary judgment order is vacated and the 
   case is remanded for dismissal without prejudice. 
  
133795U.pdf   03/23/2015  Mark Hammett  v.  J. Cofield
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3795
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Smith and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in 
   the matter, see Hammet v. Colfield, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012). On 
   remand, the district court erred in granting the CMS defendants' motion 
   for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate 
   indifference to medical needs claim;on remand, the district court should 
   rule on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel or, alternatively, 
   appointment of a medical expert. 
  
141054P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Jermaine Roy
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1054
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. In this prosecution for sex trafficking, the 
   district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit 
   defendant to show a video of the victim performing a sex act on him; the 
   district court did not err under Fed. R. Evid. 412(a) in refusing to 
   permit defendant to introduce evidence of he victim's past sexual 
   behavior; nor did exclusion of the evidence violate defendant's Sixth 
   Amendment rights; in any event, defendant's failure to file a timely 
   notice under Rule 412(c)(1)(B) was sufficient grounds to deny the request; 
   claim of Brady violation rejected as defendant had access to the relevant 
   information, which was in a published Arkansas Supreme Court decision, and 
   the government was unaware of the fact that the victim had made a false 
   statement to state police in an unrelated case. 
  
141422P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Cesar Gonzalez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1422
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing.UPS employees were not acting 
   as government agents, and the search they conducted of a package was a 
   private search and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; temporary 
   seizure of a second package was based on a reasonable suspicion of 
   criminal activity; duration of seizure (three and one-half hours) was not 
   unreasonable; drug dog alert provided an adequate basis for issuance of a 
   search warrant; omission from the warrant application of the fact that the 
   drug dog initially also showed interest in another package was not the 
   kind of reckless disregard of the truth which requires a Franks hearing; 
   no error in denying defendant's request for a two-level reduction under 
   Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility; district court 
   properly weighed the 3553(a)factors and considered defendant's request for 
   a downward variance; disparity between defendant's sentence and a 
   co-defendant's was justified by defendant's escalating pattern of criminal 
   conduct and the fact that he was on probation when he committed this 
   offense. 
  
141425P.pdf   03/23/2015  Allan Rodgers  v.  Daniel Knight
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1425
                          and No:  14-1454
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. Prosecutors had absolute immunity for filing a 
   criminal charge against plaintiff Greg Rodgers and the officers were 
   entitled to qualified immunity for recommending an unlawful use of weapons 
   charge; officers were entitled to qualified immunity on charge they 
   violated plaintiff's rights by seeking a search warrant; search was 
   reasonable and officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the scope 
   of the search; officers were entitled to hold the weapons as evidence and 
   returned them within a reasonable time after the close of the criminal 
   proceedings; plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims were correctly dismissed 
   as lawful seizure and retention of weapons does not violate the Second 
   Amendment; officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claim they 
   seized the weapons in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his First 
   Amendment rights since they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff and 
   seize his weapons; failure to train and instruct claims against the City 
   of Columbia and Boone County rejected; claim that a senior judge cannot 
   preside over the case is foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent, and claim 
   the judge should have recused was raised for the first time on appeal and 
   would not be considered. With respect to plaintiff Franklin's appeal, the 
   officers had probable cause to seek a warrant and arrest him and were 
   entitled to qualified immunity; guns seen in plain view during the 
   execution of a "drug warrant" could be seized as tools of the drug trade 
   and evidence of the offense; weapons could be retained for evidence 
   purposes; First Amendment retaliation claim was properly dismissed as the 
   officers had probable cause to arrest defendant; failure to train claims 
   were properly dismissed. 
  
141664P.pdf   03/23/2015  Sherrita Harris  v.  Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1664
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case. In an action on a statutorily-required bond, the district 
   court erred in determining the case was governed by Missouri's three-year 
   statute of limitations for an action upon a statute for a penalty or 
   forfeiture; the action was governed by the ten-year statute of limitations 
   for an action upon any writing for the payment of money or property (MO. 
   Rev. Stat. Sec. 516.110(1) RSMO 2000). 
  
141669P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Acie Evans
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1669
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Police officers' decision to impound 
   defendant's vehicle was based on department policy regarding towing; 
   district court's determination that the manager of the apartment complex 
   where the vehicle was parked had asked officers to remove the vehicle was 
   not clearly erroneous; district court did not err in determining the 
   officers did not have an improper investigatory motive for the search of 
   the vehicle. 
  
141787P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Mark Brewer
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1787
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Forfeitures. The government made reasonable attempts to notify Brewer of 
   the forfeiture proceedings by mailed notices and publication; the evidence 
   established Brewer was well aware of the seizure and could have filed a 
   timely claim; government proved a substantial connection between the 
   seized funds and drug activity, and the court did not err in forfeiting 
   the cash; Brewer did not meet his burden of proving innocent ownership; 
   seizure of the cash was not an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. 
  
141928P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Elfred William Petruk
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1928
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bright, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was not sufficient to establish 
   that defendant committed the offense of carjacking as the initial theft of 
   the truck was accomplished when the truck was unoccupied and his actions 
   in attacking someone who followed him and attempted to recover the truck 
   amounted to retaining rather than acquiring control of the stolen truck; 
   no rational trier of fact could conclude that in attempting to secure a 
   false statement in December, 2012 that defendant contemplated a 
   particular, foreseeable "official proceeding" as defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 
   1515(a)(1)(A), and his conviction for obstructing an official proceeding 
   under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c)(2) is vacated; however, defendant's efforts 
   to obtain a false statements after the initiation of this federal 
   prosecution did amount to a violation of 1512(c)(2), and this conviction 
   is affirmed. Remanded for resentencing. 
  
141999U.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Hernandez Allen
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1999
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in 
   determining that defendant possessed drugs with intent to distribute, a 
   Class A violation of his supervised release. 
  
142185U.pdf   03/23/2015  Ronald Wayne Morton, Jr.  v.  Carolyn W. Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2185
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Social Security. Decision to deny benefits was supported by 
   substantial evidence; claimant failed to establish that his conditions 
   were severe impairments and there was no merit to his claim that the ALJ 
   failed to develop the record on the impairments; the VE was not required 
   to take into account claimant's nonexertional limitations as they did not 
   significantly limit or diminish his residual functional capacity. 
  
142369U.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Antonio Acevedo-Rodriguez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2369
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court correctly 
   determined defendant's criminal history points as the points are based on 
   the sentence imposed, and not as defendant argues, on the time served; no 
   error in finding 1996 perjury offense was imposed within 15 years of the 
   commencement of this reentry offense. 
  
142630U.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Antonio Shaw
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2630
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. For the court's prior opinion 
   remanding for resentencing under Alleyne, see U.S. v. Shaw, 751 F.3d 918 
   (8th Cir. 2014). Several of defendant's arguments are precluded either by 
   the decision in the first appeal or his failure to raise them in the first 
   appeal; no error in the district court's drug quantity calculation; the 
   court did not err in admitting evidence of uncharged conduct at the 
   sentencing; court remedied the Alleyne error at the resentencing by 
   recognizing the statutory mandatory minimum and then considering the 
   3553(a) factors. 
  
143257U.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Michael Hancock
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3257
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Court did not err in giving 
   substantial weight to a prior conviction in setting sentence upon the 
   revocation of defendant's supervised release.