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.
131635P.pdf   07/29/2015  James Solomon  v.  Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-1635
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville    
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Bye and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. For the court's prior opinion in 
   the matter, see Solomon v. Petray, 699 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2012). 
   Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified 
   immunity on plaintiff's claim that they arranged for local jail officials 
   to beat him in retaliation for a letter he wrote the district judge who 
   had sentenced him, as plaintiff alleged he had engaged in protected 
   expression, had suffered an adverse action and had pleaded sufficient 
   facts that would allow a reasonable jury to find a causal connection 
   between the expression and the adverse action; his claims against a Deputy 
   Marshal for striking him similarly alleged retaliation for a protected 
   activity and the Deputy Marshal was not entitled to qualified immunity on 
   that claim; defendant Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity on 
   plaintiff's conspiracy claim as there was evidence to support a jury's 
   reasonable inference that Jones entered into an agreement with local jail 
   authorities to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional right to be free 
   from excessive force. 
  
133335P.pdf   07/29/2015  United States  v.  Isreal Hawkins, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3335
                          and No:  13-3336
                          and No:  13-3337
                          and No:  13-3338
                          and No:  13-3339
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. No error in denying motion to 
   sever defendant Brown in this massive stock fraud case as her defense was 
   not irreconcilable with defendant Hawkins's defenses and there was no 
   evidence that the jury was not able to compartmentalize the evidence or 
   that Hawkins' pro se defense prejudiced her; no error in denying defendant 
   Roper's motion to subpoena witnesses; claims of juror misconduct and bias 
   rejected; Batson challenge rejected; while admission of a government 
   exhibit summarizing certain records and testimony was an error, the error 
   was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant 
   Huerung and the safeguards the district court implemented to minimize any 
   prejudicial effects of the exhibit; evidence was sufficient to support 
   defendants Miller's and Roper's conspiracy, wire and securities fraud and 
   money laundering convictions; no error in applying a manager/supervisor 
   role enhancement in calculating defendant Heurung's sentence; no error in 
   calculating the amount of loss attributable to defendant Heurung. 
  
141171P.pdf   07/29/2015  United States  v.  Jamie Jones
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1171
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. While an on-the-record inquiry into 
   defendant's pre-trial motion for appointment of counsel would have aided 
   review, the magistrate judge did not err in denying the motion without an 
   inquiry as the motion described defendant's complaints in detail and did 
   not provide a basis for removing counsel and appointing a new lawyer; 
   Speedy Trial Act claim based on defendant's attorney's requests for 
   continuances was waived because defendant failed to assert his Speedy 
   Trial Act rights before trial; video of search contained relevant evidence 
   and the fact that it depicted possible other criminal activity did not 
   prejudice defendant in light of the court's directions to the jury and the 
   strength of the government's case in this felon-in-possession prosecution. 
  
142217P.pdf   07/29/2015  United States  v.  Rodney Hughes
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2217
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines    
   [PUBLISHED] [Schiltz, Author, with Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal case. In this Lacey Act prosecution, the jury 
   found the market value of the wildlife taken in hunts led by defendant 
   exceeded the felony threshold of $350 based solely on the the price 
   hunters paid for the opportunity to participate in the hunt or the value 
   of the wildlife as set out in Iowa state laws and did not find the value 
   exceeded $350 based on the price the wildlife would fetch on the open 
   market; the instruction which permitted the jury to find a felony 
   violation of the Act solely on the basis that the hunters paid more than 
   $350 for guide services was erroneous; while the evidence of the price of 
   the guide services is relevant to the market value of the wildlife, it is 
   not the same as the market value or, for that matter, the best indication 
   of the value of the game; while the statutory values for the wildlife set 
   in Iowa Code Sec. 481A.130 can be considered in determining the market 
   value, it remains in the province of the jury to determine what weight, if 
   any should be given to such statutory valuations in making their 
   determination of market value; since a jury properly instructed on market 
   value could have acquitted defendant on this record, the error was not 
   harmless and the convictions and sentences must be reversed and remanded 
   for a new trial. Judge Bye, dissenting. 
  
142342P.pdf   07/29/2015  Gary Kaplan  v.  CIR
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2342
   The United States Tax Court    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   U.S. Tax Court. Kaplan's failure to file a tax return for the 2004 and 
   2005 tax years allowed the Commissioner to assess taxes or initiate a 
   civil tax proceeding at any time, and this civil action was not barred by 
   the three-year statute of limitations; nor was this civil tax proceeding 
   barred by defendant's guilty plea agreement in his criminal proceeding for 
   running an illegal online gambling business or the doctrine of judicial 
   estoppel. 
  
142943P.pdf   07/29/2015  Timmy Taylor  v.  Cottrell
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2943
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Smith, Circuit Judge, and Schiltz, District 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Torts. The record did not support the district court's 
   conclusion that plaintiff's medical expert was being paid on a contingent 
   fee arrangement, and the district court clearly erred when it barred 
   plaintiff's medical expert from testifying; fact that the witness might 
   have a financial stake in the outcome of the litigation, through a 
   guarantee or a lien, can be addressed through cross-examination and is not 
   a basis for excluding the testimony. 
  
143234P.pdf   07/29/2015  United States  v.  George Harris
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3234
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Where defendant's vehicle was towed pursuant 
   to police policy and on the basis of safety, the inventory search 
   conducted prior to towing was valid. 
  
143248U.pdf   07/29/2015  United States  v.  Willard Begay
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3248
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Benton Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support 
   defendant's conviction for assault of a Federal Medical Center employee. 
  
151442U.pdf   07/29/2015  Anthony Rizzuti  v.  Linda Sanders
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1442
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Smith and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case. Dismissal affirmed without comment. 
  
151541U.pdf   07/29/2015  Paul Payen  v.  Hon. Warden B.R. Jett
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1541
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - habeas. The district court erred in dismissing that 
   portion of this Section 2241 petition which challenged Payen's continued 
   confinement under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246; in all other respects, the 
   dismissal is affirmed.