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.