OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Saturday November 22, 2014 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY The most recent opinions are for: [ 11/20/2014 ]  
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.
141215P.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Thomas Iyarpeya
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1215
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen   
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Murphy, Melloy, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release sentence. District court did not plainly err in failing to advise defendant that he could withdraw his admission if the plea agreement was rejected and that the court could impose a harsher sentence. Rule 11 does not apply to revocation hearings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward to an above-Guidelines sentence of 24 months, as the court noted defendant absconded and was not a good candidate for further supervised release, and highlighted the seriousness of the original offense, the leniency of the orignal sentence and the failure to pay restitution.
141295U.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Larry Big Boy
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1295
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Bowman, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. Reasonableness of revocation prison sentence is now moot. The court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in not examining sua sponte whether the original conditions were warranted.
141397U.pdf  11/20/2014  Vernon Johnson  v.  SSM Healthcare System
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1397
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Bye, and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Health Care Qualifty Improvement Act. No basis for overturning the district court's determination that SSM was entitled to HCQIA immunity, because appellant did not satisfy burden of producing evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the peer review process failed to meet HCQIA's standards. Judgment of district court is summarily affirmed.
141504P.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Guy Wheelock
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1504
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
[PUBLISHED] [Chief Judge Riley, Author, with Wollman and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - suppression and sentence. Use of administrative subpoena ordering Comcast to provide Internet Protocol address did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The third-party disclosure principle does not apply differently in the digital context. The Minnesota internet privacy statute does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Because Wheelock had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information, a warrant was not necessary. Neither federal nor state statute warrants suppression. Imposition of fifteen-year mandatory minimum for repeat offenders does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by setting receipt of child pornography at a higher minimum that possession of child pornography. Receipt furthers the market whereas possession may not and may involve a mens rea for knowing receipt. The distinction in the minimums is not irrational.
141527P.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Howard John Aleff
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1527
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen   
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - False Claims Act. After pleading guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States by submitting false application for loan deficiency payments and ordered to pay restitution, appellants appeal from the government's subsequent action under the False Claims Act and imposition of $1.3 million penalty. Guilty plea established the essential elements of the false claim act claim. Sentencing finding of diminished capacity did not negate preclusive effect of guilty plea or admission and did not raise a factual issue whether appellant knowingly presented a false claim. False Claims Act does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the FCA is not punishment and treble damages are compensatory not punitive. Penalty imposed did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause. The monetary sanction is not grossly disproportional. Judgment is affirmed.
141565U.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Aaron Blaylock
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1565
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Bye, Shepherd, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentence. Blaylock's within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as district court weighed his mitigating factors by giving consideration to his upbringing and family history. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a downward variance based on his lack of guidance as a child or his HIV-positive status.
141766U.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Gonzalo Ponce-Hurtado
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1766
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Bye Shepherd, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentence. The district court did not clearly err, after a hearing on the objected-to drug quantity determination, in determining defendant was responsible for at least five kilograms of methamphetamine mixture. The court did not clearly err in determining he was a leader or organizer, as district court found his testimony was not credible and he qualified for the enhancment in light of his activities in managing the criminal enterprise.
141964U.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Ryan Willis
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-1964
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Bye, Shepherd, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release sentence. Following defendant's two pretrial release violations and two supervised release violations, the district court's imposition of an upward variance of 24 months imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow was not substantively unreasonable. District court considered all the factors and specifically addressed several of the factors. Based upon this court's review of the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
142010U.pdf  11/20/2014  United States  v.  Willie  Stephenson, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   14-2010
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Bye, Shepherd, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release sentence. Sentence of 24 months imprisonment, the statutory maximum for revocation where the original offense was a Class C felony and an above-Guidelines sentence, was not substantively unreasonable. District court heard arguments on the application of the section 3553(a) factors, considered the factors and defendant's history and characteristics, and properly weighed the factors, while explaining why it was imposing a longer sentence.