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.
142050P.pdf   08/27/2015  United States  v.  STABL
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2050
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Clean Water Act. In an enforcement action by the United 
   States and the State of Nebraska against STABL for violations of the Clean 
   Water Act and the Nebraska Environmental Act, the district court did not 
   err in finding that the company's effluent discharges exceeded its permit 
   limits and its legal duty to monitor the discharge to avoid violations; 
   the district court did not err in admitting into evidence the discharge 
   monitoring reports STABL had to certify as the documents were nonhearsay 
   adoptive admissions; further, by failing to respond to the government's 
   requests for admissions regarding the discharge monitoring reports, STABL 
   admitted their authenticity and that they were what they reported to be - 
   STABL's discharge monitoring reports signed by its general manager; when a 
   defendant's own discharge monitoring reports demonstrate discharge in 
   excess of permit limits, they constitute sufficient evidence to meet a 
   Clear Water Act plaintiff's burden of production on liability and may be 
   sufficient, in some circumstances, to entitle plaintiff to summary 
   judgment; a defendant who wishes to challenge the accuracy of the 
   laboratory results bears a heavy burden to impeach its own reports and 
   cannot meet that burden by simply pointing to potential error without 
   specific evidence showing the error likely resulted in overreporting of 
   pollutant levels; here, defendant failed to impeach the results; testimony 
   by EPA compliance officer was primarily related to his industry experience 
   rather than expert knowledge and he did not have to disclosed as an 
   expert; no error in admitting testimony from the government's expert on 
   economic benefit as any delay in the submission of his report was 
   harmless; the district court did not err in rejecting STABL's challenge to 
   the accuracy of the city's monitoring records as it was under an 
   obligation to ensure that the sampling data was accurate and 
   representative; because STABL's challenges to witness testimony and the 
   admissibility of the discharge monitoring reports fail, and because it had 
   not sufficiently impeached the accuracy of the reports and monitoring 
   records, the evidence would have allowed the district court to grant 
   judgment as a matter of law on the number of effluent-limitations 
   violations and any error in denying a jury trial was harmless. 
  
143006P.pdf   08/27/2015  Security National Bank  v.  Jones Day
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3006
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Attorney Discipline. Following a jury verdict for the 
   plaintiff in an action alleging Abbott Lab's baby formula caused permanent 
   brain damage to an infant, the district court directed defendant's counsel 
   to show cause why she should not be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 
   30(d)(2) for obstructing each deposition in which she participated. After 
   considering her response, the district court ordered her to produce a 
   discovery training video dealing with the impropriety of form objections, 
   witness coaching and excessive interruptions and to distribute the video 
   to most of the attorneys in her national law firm. The sanctions order is 
   vacated. The plain language of Rule 30(d)(2) does not impose a limit on 
   the district court's ability to impose sanctions on its motion; with few 
   exceptions, sanctions for discovery misconduct should be imposed within a 
   time frame that has a nexus to the behavior sought to be deterred, and the 
   primary purpose of the rule was not well served by the post hoc procedures 
   employed here where as much as two years had passed since the deposition 
   conduct; further, no advance notice was given of the unusual nature of the 
   sanctions being considered; so unusual a sanction as the one imposed here 
   requires the district court to give particularized notice of the nature of 
   the sanction it has in mind so that counsel has a meaningful opportunity 
   to respond; assuming there was sanctionable conduct here, defense counsel 
   has already suffered damage to her her reputation, as well as inevitable 
   financial and personal costs, and no deterrent purpose would be served by 
   remanding the case for further proceedings; the sanctions order is 
   vacated. 
  
143136P.pdf   08/27/2015  United States  v.  George Thunderhawk
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3136
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck    
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The officer's statement that 
   defendant would not be arrested at the end of the interview did not render 
   defendant's confession involuntary as it was not the type of coercive 
   police activity that would overbear defendant's will; Missouri v. Siebert 
   does not apply as defendant was not in custody at the time he made his 
   incriminating statements; the district court did not err in instructing 
   the jury that in reaching their verdict they were permitted to draw "such 
   reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in light of experience and 
   common sense;" challenges to government's closing argument rejected as the 
   challenged statements correctly stated the elements of the offense and did 
   not argue that defendant had the burden of proof on his innocence; no 
   error in denying a reduction for acceptance-of-responsibility; 
   Apprendi-based challenge to the restitution order covering victim's mental 
   health rejected; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 
  
143269U.pdf   08/27/2015  Raymundo Duran-Barraza  v.  Eric H. Holder, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3269
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Petition for Review - Immigration. The court lacks jurisdiction to review 
   the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and the petition for 
   review is denied. 
  
151670U.pdf   08/27/2015  United States  v.  Antoine Clemons
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1670
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence 
   imposed was not substantively unreasonable; the government did not breach 
   the plea agreement by seeking a section 851 enhancement; challenge to the 
   special supervised release conditions rejected as the conditions were 
   reasonably related to the appropriate sentencing factors and the 
   unchallenged material in the PSR describing defendant's history and 
   characteristics; guilty plea foreclosed a challenge to the sufficiency of 
   the evidence.