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v. Wendell Jones U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2339 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing.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Peter Ragnone U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3302 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Rights.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.