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.
143437U.pdf 04/28/2016 United States v. Samuel Ford U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3437 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The mandatory life sentence provisions of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A) applied to defendant's offense; the government gave defendant notice that it would seek an increased punishment in compliance with 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(a); Eighth Amendment challenge to mandatory life sentence rejected as the sentence is not an extreme sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime. 151226P.pdf 04/28/2016 Israel Felipe Lira Saldana v. Loretta E. Lynch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1226 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum relief is affirmed on the alternative grounds that petitioners failed to show, with respect to their claim of persecution by a private actors, that the government of Mexico either condoned the conduct or was unable to protect the victims; the record showed the police acted on the complaints of home invasion and abduction and continued to investigate the matters; further, the government of Mexico has devoted substantial resources to controlling criminal organizations, such as the Matazeta gang which committed crimes against petitioners' family; the Board's conclusion that it was reasonable for petitioners to relocate within Mexico to avoid a threat of persecution by the Matazetas was supported by the evidence in the record; because the Board permissibly rejected petitioners' claim for asylum, it follows they did not meet the stricter requirements for withholding of removal; denial of CAT relief affirmed. Judge Murphy, dissenting. 151345U.pdf 04/28/2016 Eldon Bugg v. Cyril Gray U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1345 Appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court's award of actual damages to debtor for a violation of the automatic stay reversed; the stay respecting his home had terminated by operation of law, and the BAP's determination that the creditors had waived their right to enforce the section 362(e) deadlines was erroneous as waiver is an affirmative defense and debtor never raised it; the creditors did not violate the automatic stay by taking possession of debtor's personal effects as the stay has been lifted with respect to those items because they were divested from the estate, prior to eviction, by debtor's claimed exemption for their full value; there were no damages with respect to a seized truck, as the secured creditor had filed an uncontested claim against the estate for the balance due on the truck and debtor's co-signor has since reimbursed the creditor for the full balance of the loan. 151586P.pdf 04/28/2016 United States v. Jerry Golliher U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1586 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not developed and would not be considered on direct appeal; defendant failed to comply with the requirements of FRAP 28(a)(8)(A) with respect to his claim that the district court erred in excluding certain emails by failing to supply any citation to the record to show that the emails were more probative than other evidence under the third prong of Rule 807, and the court would not reverse on this issue; the district court did not clearly err in answering the jury's question concerning the victim's age; claims of prosecutorial misconduct (misstatements of law and improper vouching) during closing argument rejected. 151689U.pdf 04/28/2016 United States v. Ronald Roberts U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1689 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. On facts presented, the district court did not err in imposing a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based on defendant's threat to a fraud victim after she threatened to expose his offense. 151771U.pdf 04/28/2016 United States v. Jamie Harvey U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1771 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's convictions for second-degree assault under Minn. Stat. Section 609.222, subd.1 were violent felonies for purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e)(1). 151811U.pdf 04/28/2016 Chase Hunter v. Jay Bradford U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1811 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel; the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's interlocutory appeal of the denial of her motion for a TRO. 152869U.pdf 04/28/2016 Victor Gomez v. Loretta E. Lynch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2869 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that petitioner had failed to establish an exceptional and unusual hardship for cancellation of removal; as he must establish this element, as well as the other three prerequisites for cancellation, the adverse hardship determination is dispositive of his claim. 153751P.pdf 04/28/2016 Darnell Moon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3751 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Freedom of Information Act. The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's FOIA action for failure to exhaust as FOIA is silent as to whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense; if an act is silent on this question, the general practice is to treat it as an affirmative defense, and it was error to dismiss for failing to plead exhaustion; the matter is remanded for further proceedings.