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.
131367P.pdf 12/16/2014 Kevin Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-1367 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Where defendant charged no fee for the preparation of a deed of trust, it did not, under Missouri law, engage in the law business; plaintiff's concession that defendant did not charge him also undermines his unjust-enrichment claim and his claim that defendant violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; no error in denying motion to alter or amend the judgment as plaintiff's proposed amendments to his complaint would have been futile. 133416P.pdf 12/16/2014 Marvin Reeves v. Lt. Jacob King U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3416 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendant's action in revealing to other inmates that plaintiff had "snitched" on a prison employee who was bringing illegal drugs into the prison subjected plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm at the hands of his fellow inmates; existing case law at the time sufficiently gave defendant fair warning that his alleged actions violated plaintiff's constitutional rights and he was not, therefore, entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims. 141249P.pdf 12/16/2014 United States v. Christopher Kelley U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1249 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant did not contest the magistrate judge's denial of his motion for substitute counsel by filing an objection with the district court and he waived the issue for appeal; even if the court were to excuse defendant's waiver and review the decision, his complaints about his appointed counsel did not rise to the level of justifiable dissatisfaction, and the magistrate judge did not err in denying the motion; the district court did not err in denying defendant's day-of-trial motion for substitution of counsel; with respect to defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying his request to proceed pro se, it is not clear whether the district court found the request unclear and equivocal or untimely or obstructionist or if the court found defendant could not produce a valid waiver of his right to counsel, and the matter is remanded to permit the district court to clarify its ruling. 141901U.pdf 12/16/2014 William Raymundo-Rodriguez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1901 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supported the order denying petitioner's request for withholding of removal; specifically, petitioner failed to show a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of his membership in the particular social group he identified. 141907U.pdf 12/16/2014 James Widtfeldt v. James Daugherty U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1907 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Order dismissing plaintiff's claim for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion when plaintiff failed to show that he had properly effectuated service within 120 days of the filing of his complaint. 142299U.pdf 12/16/2014 United States v. Kelly Randall U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2299 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's purported consideration of a factor unrelated to defendant's substantial assistance in determining the extent of his Rule 35(b) reduction was not a reviewable violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a), and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.