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.
143141P.pdf 05/19/2016 United States v. Torrance Cotton U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3141 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction. Conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine is affirmed. Although the district court and the government recited some of the purposes for which evidence of prior conviction may be used without an accompanying case-specific analysis, any error in admitting the evidence of prior convictions was harmless. District court did not err in admitting co-conspirator's post arrest statement to rehabilitate another co-conspirator's statement, as it was offered for impeachment purposes, was non-hearsay co-conspirator statements, and was admitted solely under Rule 806. Prior consistent statements are not admissible as rehabilitative evidence, but may be admitted to explain or impeach inconsistent statement. In this case the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting all the proffered evidence. District court did not err in concluding the government's suppression of the photograph used for identification purposes did not constitute a Brady violation, as there was no reasonable probability the result would have been different had the earlier photograph been disclosed to defendant; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. Judge Colloton concurs in part and concurs in the judgment. 151064U.pdf 05/19/2016 United States v. Kelvin Stanford U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1064 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Murphy, Beam, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. Imposition of 18-month sentence, an upward variance from the advisory guidelines, for committing an almost identical crime three months after release from imprisonment was not an abuse of discretion and the sentence was not unreasonable. Determining the sentence would run consecutively to any sentence imposed as a result of the new charges was not an abuse of discretion. 151815P.pdf 05/19/2016 Brook Mallak v. Anthony Runde U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1815 and No: 15-1819 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Driver's Privacy Protection Act. This interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity by police officers who accessed personal data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Vehicle Services is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as this court lacks jurisdiction to reevaluate on interlocutory appeal the district court's determination that the question sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial. The record does not foreclose the possibility that the officer accessed the data for a purpose not permitted by the Act. 152317P.pdf 05/19/2016 A. H. v. Midwest Bus Sales, Inc U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2317 and No: 15-2318 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Chief Judge Riley, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - diversity. Following a state court trial on strict liability and negligence claims which resulted in verdict in favor of defendants, parallel diversity action in federal court against the retail seller of the bus (who was not named in the amended complaint in the state court action) for negligence was dismissed on grounds of res judicata because Midwest Bus was in privity with the state court defendants. In this appeal, collateral estoppel, not res judicata, precludes the relitigation in federal court on the improper installation issue, as the state court jury unambiguously decided the injuries were not caused by improper installation of automatic slack adjusters on the bus, and the failure to warn claim could not be relitigated because the jury had to have concluded that the automatic slack adjusters were not the cause or contributing clause of the crash. 153316U.pdf 05/19/2016 Michael Westfall v. Carolyn Colvin U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3316 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bye, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - social security. The decision to deny disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Westfall did not meet his burden of showing his mood disorder was a severe impairment and the ALJ was not required to develop the record on the mood disorder. The ALJ's residual functional capacity determinations and the credibility findings were consistent with the record. 153968U.pdf 05/19/2016 United States v. Kevin Shook U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3968 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Murphy, Bowman, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Sentence Reduction. District court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce sentence in light of defendant?s criminal history and the circumstances of the offense.