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.
133676P.pdf   05/03/2016  LaMonte Martin  v.  Jessica Symmes
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3676
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. On remand from the Supreme Court of the United 
   States. See Martin v. Smith, No. 15-6030 (March 7, 2016). For this court's 
   prior opinion in the matter, see Martin v. Symmes, 782 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 
   2015). On remand, this court's vacates Part I of its opinion holding 
   Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) does not apply retroactively to 
   cases on collateral review. Part II of the court's opinion affirming the 
   district court's rejection of Martin's challenge to the prosecution's 
   strike of a juror is reaffirmed, and the matter is remanded for further 
   proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
  
151004P.pdf   05/03/2016  United States  v.  Fernando Martinez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1004
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The government concedes defendant is no longer 
   a career offender under the residual clause of Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the 
   Sentencing Guidelines as his conviction for escape is no longer a crime of 
   violence following the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United 
   States, 135 S. Ct 2551 (2015); however, the court's alternative sentence 
   is substantively unreasonable because the degree of the variance - from a 
   guidelines range of 121-151 months to range of 262-327 months - was not 
   supported by the factors cited by the district court. Judge Loken, 
   concurring. 
  
151317P.pdf   05/03/2016  Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC  v.  Medtox Scientific, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1317
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Smith and Bye, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The district court erred 
   in denying class certification on the ground the class was not 
   ascertainable as the fax logs in the case showing the numbers that 
   received each fax are objective criteria that make the recipient clearly 
   ascertainable; the proposed class also meets the commonality and 
   predominance requirements of Rule 23; the judgment in favor of defendant 
   is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. 
  
152085P.pdf   05/03/2016  United States  v.  Eddie Denton
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2085
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo    
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion by 
   declining to grant defendant the maximum reduction available under Section 
   3582(c)(2); the court considered the 3553(a) factors and its sentencing 
   decision was not inconsistent with its prior sentencing decision. 
  
152319P.pdf   05/03/2016  Michael Fiorito  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2319
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not violate Fiorito's Sixth 
   Amendment right to counsel when it granted his pro se request to withdraw 
   his guilty plea without a hearing; because Fiorito was represented by 
   counsel and received counsel's advice, he did not waive his right to 
   counsel and the district court had no duty to conduct a Faretta hearing; 
   the record at the Section 2255 hearing showed Fiorito understood the 
   dangers of abandoning his plea agreement as his lawyer repeatedly advised 
   him against withdrawing the plea and warned him he faced a substantially 
   longer sentence if he went to trial. 
  
152329P.pdf   05/03/2016  Randall Thompson  v.  CIR
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2329
   The United States Tax Court    
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Melloy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Tax Court. The Tax Court did not err in dismissing the taxpayers' 
   challenge to the penalty issue in the case for lack of jurisdiction as 
   they had withdrawn their challenge to the penalty issue earlier in the 
   litigation and the matter had become moot.