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.
132334P.pdf   12/19/2014  Plymouth County, Iowa  v.  Merscorp, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2334
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Civil case - Mortgages. In action alleging defendants improperly deprived 
   plaintiff county of revenue by using the Mortgage Electronic Registration 
   System to avoid paying recording fees on mortgage assignments, the county 
   suffered a loss of fees and interference with its recording system and had 
   standing to bring this action; the district court did not err in 
   dismissing the county's unjust enrichment and conspiracy claims or in 
   denying its requests to pierce the veil and grant injunctive and 
   declaratory relief as Iowa law does not impose a duty on assignees to 
   record assignments of real estate mortgages; proposed amendment to 
   complaint wold be futile, and the district court did not err in denying 
   the county's motion to alter or amend its complaint. 
  
133026P.pdf   12/19/2014  The County of Ramsey  v.  MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3026
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Civil case - Mortgages. The district court did not err in determining that 
   the Minnesota Recording Act does not impose a mandatory recording 
   requirement for all mortgages and subsequent assignments; a county cannot 
   state a claim for unjust enrichment when there is no duty under state law 
   to record mortgages or subsequent assignments; in light of existing case 
   law, the question presented by the case does not warrant certification to 
   the Minnesota Supreme Court. 
  
133732P.pdf   12/19/2014  Modesto Paulino  v.  Chartis Claims, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3732
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Bye and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Insurance. In action alleging bad-faith denial of benefits, 
   the text of the statute in question and the relevant case law rendered the 
   claim fairly debatable and accordingly there was a reasonable basis for 
   the insurer's decision to deny plaintiff's claim. 
  
141336P.pdf   12/19/2014  United States  v.  Demario Booker
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1336
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not abuse its 
   discretion by answering the jury's question regarding constructive 
   possession by referring the jury to instructions that accurately stated 
   the legal definition of constructive possession and the "knowingly" 
   element of the offense. 
  
141642P.pdf   12/19/2014  Richard Smith  v.  Mitch Parker
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1642
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
   [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Indian law. The district court carefully reviewed all of the 
   relevant materials and factor in evaluating the 1882 Act ratifying an 
   agreement for the sale of Omaha tribal lands to non-Indian settlers and in 
   determining the Act did not diminish the Omaha reservation; nor did the 
   court err in determining that the parcels of land in question are located 
   on Omaha tribal land. 
  
142252U.pdf   12/19/2014  United States  v.  Elizandro Hernandez-Gonzalez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2252
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court erred in assigning a 
   criminal history point to defendant's 2003 Driving Under the Influence 
   conviction because the conviction did not meet any of the criteria for 
   assigning points to offenses committed when defendants are under 18 years 
   of age; however, without the incorrectly assigned point, defendant's 
   criminal history score was still Category I, and the error did not affect 
   his advisory Guidelines range; since nothing suggests the district court 
   would have sentenced him to less than 16 months without the error, the 
   sentence is affirmed. 
  
142478U.pdf   12/19/2014  United States  v.  Nicholas Appleby
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2478
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye, and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Any error the district court made in imposing 
   a vulnerable victim enhancement under Guidelines Sec 3A1.1(b)(1) was 
   harmless in light of the court's statement that it would impose a 
   480-month sentence with or without the enhancement; the court did not err 
   in denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on 
   defendant's fetal alcohol syndrome; the defendant's sentence was not 
   substantively unreasonable.