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.
141435P.pdf 07/27/2015 Mark Robbins v. Randy Becker, Sr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1435 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Robbins v. Becker, 715 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2013). In action alleging the defendant state troopers and towing companies conspired to interfere with plaintiffs' towing business, the district court did not err in finding plaintiffs did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to any particular towing work and could not establish a constitutionally-protected property right; nor did their claims establish violation of a liberty interest; in order to establish a "class-of-one" equal protection claim, a plaintiff must provide a specific and detailed account of the nature of the preferred treatment of the favored class, especially where the state actors exercise broad discretion to balance a number of legitimate considerations, and plaintiffs failed to meet this exacting standard; absent a constitutional violation, plaintiffs could not state an actionable conspiracy claim; with respect to the claim that the officers conspired with other towing companies to restrain and monopolize trade in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence of such a conspiracy. Judge Loken, concurring. 142576P.pdf 07/27/2015 United States v. Randy Patrie U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2576 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Where the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence at the sentencing hearing that during a burglary defendant had murdered the home owner with the shotgun seized from defendant's home, the district court did not err in applying a cross reference for murder to defendant's felon in possession charge; the district court did not err in determining defendant's Iowa second-degree burglary convictions were violent felonies for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act; under this Circuit's precedents, the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights when it determined that he was a career offender. 142874U.pdf 07/27/2015 United States v. Markeace Canty U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2874 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Bright and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Any error in admitting evidence seized from defendant's phone and wallet was harmless in light of the other evidence of his guilt; further, the record showed the evidence on the phone was admissible under the inevitable discovery rule since it was synched to a laptop which was lawfully seized under the search warrant; 300-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 143161U.pdf 07/27/2015 Augustine Onuoha v. International Univ. of Nursing U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3161 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. Defendant did not waive its right to move to dismiss for failure to state a claim by failing to object to the magistrate judge's order permitting the filing of an amended complaint; no error in denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint. 143567P.pdf 07/27/2015 United States v. Howard Fleetwood U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3567 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Even if the court assumes that the district court erred in failing to address defendant personally and offer him an opportunity to make a statement before imposing a revocation sentence and that such a requirement was clear under current law, defendant was still not entitled to any relief under a plain error analysis as he could not show the error affected his substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness, integrity or reputation of the proceedings. Judge Murphy, concurring. 143689U.pdf 07/27/2015 United States v. Randy Bise U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3689 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in applying enhancements under Guidelines Sec. 3D1.2, 3D1.4 (grouping of offenses) and Guidelines Sec. 4B1.5(b) (pattern of offenses involving prohibited sexual conduct with a minor) and the enhancements did not amount to impermissible double counting; below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 151439U.pdf 07/27/2015 Anthony Rizzuti v. Linda Sanders U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1439 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bivens. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.