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.
142998P.pdf   11/23/2015  United States  v.  Carmen Haire
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2998
                          and No:  14-3196
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Wiretapped phone conversations were properly 
   authenticated and the district court did not err in admitting them; no 
   error in allowing a special agent to testify as to the meaning of certain 
   drug-related terms used in the recordings; no error in admitting 
   recordings where defendant Lee referred to his connections to cartels; 
   statements made by co-conspirators were properly admitted against 
   defendant Haire; no error in giving a willful blindness instruction 
   against Haire; evidence was sufficient to support Haire's conviction for 
   conspiracy to launder drug proceeds. 
143213P.pdf   11/23/2015  United States  v.  Democrus Burston
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3213
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids    
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Considering the factors set forth in U.S. v. 
   Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (8th Cir. 1987), the search here (a drug dog sniff) was 
   within the curtilage of defendant's apartment; as the officers had no 
   license to invade defendant's curtilage,the drug dog sniff was an illegal 
   search in violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under Florida 
   v. Jardines, 133S. Ct. 1409 (2013); the police officer's actions reliance 
   on prior 8th Circuit was not objectively reasonable as the cases cited by 
   the prosecution do not authorize a drug dog sniff six to ten inches from 
   the suspect's window, present similar facts or provide a rationale to 
   justify the search;the district court erred in denying defendant's motion 
   to suppress, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. 
152174P.pdf   11/23/2015  United States  v.  Cesar Mujica-Aranda
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2174
                          and No:  15-2240
                          and No:  15-2441
                          and No:  15-2518
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Bye, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The appeals brought by defendants 
   Mujica-Aranda, Medina-Aranda and Eziquel Cazares are within the scope of 
   their appeal waivers, and the appeals are dismissed; the motion to dismiss 
   defendant Prophet's appeal is taken with the case, and the appeal shall