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.
152140P.pdf   08/30/2016  United States  v.  Sean Conklin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2140
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck    
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant waived his Sixth Amendment right 
   to counsel, and the district court did not err in allowing him to proceed 
   to trial pro se; an accused can waive his right to counsel by his conduct; 
   where a defendant refuses to answer the court's questions as to whether he 
   wants to be represented at trial or proceed pro se, refuses appointed 
   counsel and refuses to retain counsel, and where the court properly and 
   repeatedly explains the right to counsel and the dangers of proceeding 
   without one, the court is authorized to find a knowing, voluntary and 
   intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. 
  
152339U.pdf   08/30/2016  United States  v.  Wendell Jones
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2339
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its 
   discretion by denying Jones' motion for a sentence reduction under Section 
   3582(c)(2); the district court did not abuse its discretion by reexamining 
   the dangerous and harmful circumstances surrounding Jones' arrest and 
   giving those aggravating factors greater weight than the mitigating 
   factors urged by Jones. 
  
152990P.pdf   08/30/2016  United States  v.  Joseph Bogdan
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2990
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs    
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its 
   discretion by denying Bogdan's motion for a sentence reduction under 
   Section 3582(c)(2) as it was not evident from his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea 
   agreement that the applicable guidelines range determined the term 
   specified in the (C) agreement as required by U.S. v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct. 
   2685 (2011). 
  
153302U.pdf   08/30/2016  Randall Meidinger  v.  Peter Ragnone
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3302
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Melloy and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil Rights. Plaintiff's failure to designate in his notice 
   of appeal the district court's summary judgment order disposing of his 
   Fourteenth Amendment claim meant the court lacked jurisdiction to review 
   that order; with respect to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment concerning 
   defendant's grand jury testimony, the district court did not err in 
   concluding defendant, a detective, had absolute immunity for his grand 
   jury testimony; claim regarding defendant's pre-testimony investigation 
   and the fabrication of evidence was raised for the first time in 
   plaintiff's reply brief and is waived.