OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Thursday August 16, 2018 ] The most recent opinions are for: [ 08/16/2018 ]  
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.
164540P.pdf  08/16/2018  Theodore Wiggins  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-4540
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
[PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Habeas Case - Motion to Vacate. District court's order granting relief under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 does not become final until after resentencing and thus appeal was timely filed. Following prior grant of ineffective assistance of counsel claim, district court required government to reoffer one of the two plea offer options previously available, finding that it not credible that Wiggins would have accepted the second plea offer option. On appeal, the district court did not clearly err in determining Wiggins would not have accepted the second plea offer and in any event whether both plea bargains were reoffered is irrelevant because district court could have rejected either or both proposals.
171866P.pdf  08/16/2018  Medtronic, Inc. & Consolidated  v.  CIR
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-1866
   The United States Tax Court   
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Tax Appeal. Following a determination that Medtronic erred in allocating the profit earned from its devises and leads between its businesses located in the United States and its device manufacturer in Puerto Rico, the IRS used the comparable profits method, rather than the comparable uncontrolled transaction (CUT) transfer pricing method to determine than arm's length price for Medtronic's intercompany licensing agreements to determine income tax deficiencies for 2005 and 2006. Medtronic appealed to the Tax Court. The Tax Court applied its own valuation analysis and concluded the Pacesetter agreement as the best CUT to calculate the arm's length result for intangible property. The Commissioner appeals. The Tax Court's factual findings are insufficient to enable this court to conduct an evaluation of Tax Court's determination; specifically, it failed to address whether the circumstances of the Pacesetter settlement was comparable to the licensing agreements in this case, the degree of comparability of the contractual terms between the two situations, how the different treatment of intangibles affected the two agreements and the amount of risk and product liability expenses that should be allocated. Thus, the case is remanded for further consideration. Judge Shepherd concurs.
172470U.pdf  08/16/2018  United States  v.  David Floyd
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-2470
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not impose an unreasonable sentence by sentencing Floyd to a below-Guidelines-range sentence. Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims will not be reviewed on direct appeal.
172554P.pdf  08/16/2018  James Ferrell  v.  Air EVAC EMS
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-2554
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Preemption Airline Deregulation Act. Claim that Air EVAC EMS, Inc.'s bill for transport costs violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act because claim relates to price and services on an air carrier and applies to air- ambulance operators. Claim for declaratory judgment that Air EVAC cannot seek restitution because it attempts to gouge patients with exorbitant charges is also preempted. Claim for declaratory judgment that contract is unenforceable because it lacks an essential price term is not a contract-based claim but rather a price-disclosure rule and is thus preempted. Air EVAC's remedy if member refuses to pay for services is to bring a breach of contract action and member may bring contract defenses and unpreempted judicial remedies remain.
172992U.pdf  08/16/2018  Lexayra Lozano-Reyes  v.  Jefferson B. Sessions, III
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-2992
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - immigration. Substantial evidence supports finding that petitioner failed to show past persecution in Mexico or a well-founded fear of future persecution due to any protected ground.