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.
133253P.pdf   03/25/2015  United States  v.  Fred Robinson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3253
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Agents could reasonably rely on binding 
   Supreme Court precedents permitting them to attach a tracking device to 
   defendant's vehicle at the time they did so, and the GPS evidence in the 
   case was properly admitted; counts alleging two different schemes for 
   federal programs theft were not misjoined, as the evidence overlapped and 
   evidence from each scheme would have been admissible in the separate trial 
   of the other scheme; further, the court instructed the jury that each 
   offense was a separate or different crime, thereby minimizing any 
   prejudice; Batson claim rejected; instructions on theft concerning 
   programs receiving federal funds were not erroneous, and the court 
   properly rejected defendant's proposed instructions as they did not 
   correctly state the applicable law; evidence was sufficient to support 
   defendant's conviction for accepting wages for work not performed at his 
   parking meter inspection job for the City of St. Louis as he was agent of 
   the City government which received federal funds; below-Guidelines 
   sentence was substantively reasonable; restitution order was not an abuse 
   of discretion. 
  
141567P.pdf   03/25/2015  Jose Torres  v.  Simpatico, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1567
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] Wollman, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Arbitration. Arbitration provision in plaintiffs' franchise 
   agreements was enforceable and was not unconscionable because of the costs 
   associated with individual arbitration proceedings; argument that the 
   agreements were unconscionable because they waived punitive or exemplary 
   damages and attorneys' fees went to the merits of the dispute and were for 
   the arbitrator to resolve; agreements were broad enough to permit 
   non-signatory parties, as third party beneficiaries of the agreement, to 
   invoke and enforce the arbitration provision. 
  
141894P.pdf   03/25/2015  E3 Biofuels, LLC  v.  Biothane, LLC
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1894
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Negligence. The district court did not err in finding 
   plaintiff's claims arising out of methane plant explosion were barred by 
   Nebraska's two-year statute of limitations for professional negligence. 
  
142563U.pdf   03/25/2015  Loren Reyna  v.  Darin Young
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2563
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment 
   affirmed without comment. 
  
142992U.pdf   03/25/2015  United States  v.  Jesse Oziah
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2992
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not an abuse of the 
   district court's discretion. 
  
143035U.pdf   03/25/2015  United States  v.  Leopoldo Gamma-Deleon
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3035
                          and No:  14-3063
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [[Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentences imposed by the district 
   court upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release and his entry 
   of a guilty plea on a new offense were not substantively unreasonable.