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.
133640P.pdf   11/24/2014  Gary Brooks  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3640
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Bye and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Habeas Case - motion to vacate. Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
   for recommending an Alford plea was properly denied, as counsel's decision 
   to recommend the plea was a permissible strategic choice. 
141088P.pdf   11/24/2014  Patrick Laganiere  v.  The County of Olmsted
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1088
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil Case - civil rights. Grant of summary judgment to detention center, 
   county and detention center employees on claim of deliberate indifference 
   to serious medical needs following the death from a methadone overdose is 
   affirmed. Record does not support that detention officer knew Laganiere 
   experienced side effects or deliberately disregarded the risk, that 
   supervisor failed to train or that detention center or county was liable. 
141546P.pdf   11/24/2014  United States  v.  Kendrick Maid
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1546
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentence. Conviction for assault while displaying a 
   dangerous weapon (Iowa Code sec. 708.1(3) qualifies as a threatened use of 
   physical force and categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under 
   USSG sec. 4B1.2(a)(1). Thus, district court did not err in determining 
   base offense level pursuant to sec. 2K2.1(a)(2). Within-guidelines range 
   sentence is presumed to be substantively reasonable. Record does not 
   reveal clear error of judgment in district court's decision that the 
   section 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence. 
141553U.pdf   11/24/2014  United States  v.  Ruben Castro
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1553
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Bye, and Melloy, Circuit 
   Criminal Case - Anders. Appeal waiver is enforced. Appointment of new 
   counsel is denied. 
142087U.pdf   11/24/2014  United States  v.  Edward Jones
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2087
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Smith, Bowman, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not abuse its discretion in 
   declining to grant requested variance below the advisory Guidelines range. 
146027P.pdf   11/24/2014  Eldon Bugg  v.  Cyril Gray
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-6027
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs    
   [PUBLISHED] [Kressel, Author, with Federman and Schermer, Bankruptcy 
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel - automatic stay. Creditors' eviction and 
   disposition of debtor's property violated the automatic stay. Bankruptcy 
   court had jurisdiction to hear claim relating to violation of the stay. 
   Creditors did not object to continuances and their actions were 
   inconsistent with intent to insist on time constraints of section 362(e) 
   and, having failed to do so, they have waived their rights. Creditors are 
   barred by judicial estoppel from claiming the stay expired under section 
   362(e). Bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that creditors had 
   knowledge of the bankruptcy petition and acted deliberately and that they 
   willfully violated the automatic stay. Bankruptcy court's findings as to 
   actual damages were not clearly erroneous. The court did not make specific 
   findings as to the motive or egregious conduct in violating the stay and 
   the creditor's failure to appear at the trial does not satisfy that 
   standard for punitive damages. Thus, the bankruptcy court abused its 
   discretion in awarding punitive damages.