Text Size:
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.
[ May 03, 2013 ]
121617P.pdf 05/03/2013 United States v. Adekunle Olufemi Adetiloye U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1617 and No: 12-1919 U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. District court thoroughly considered the 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, issued a 17-page sentencing memorandum and provided a sufficient explanation for its sentencing decision; district court did not err in denying defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility where defendant contested factual statements and nearly all applicable enhancements in the PSR; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(a) for leadership role in the offense; no error in imposing an upward enhancement on the ground the offense level substantially understated the seriousness of the offense; where the government failed to provide documentation with the required specificity and reliability to establish the amount of restitution, the court should have postponed the restitution proceedings for the gathering and presentation of additional evidence; similarly, the district court erred in ordering forfeiture in the limited amount set out in its restitution order; the restitution and forfeiture orders are vacated and remanded for further proceeding regarding the losses the victims sustained and the proceeds defendant gained from the scheme. 123151U.pdf 05/03/2013 United States v. Jeffrey Rand U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3151 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court properly considered the sentencing factors and the sentence it imposed was not unreasonable; defendant withdrew his objection to the restitution portion of his sentence and waived his right to appeal the restitution order. 123373U.pdf 05/03/2013 George H. Kalberer v. Star Tribune U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3373 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims affirmed without comment. 123977U.pdf 05/03/2013 Yussuf Hamid v. JPMorgan Chase Bank U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3977 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Foreclosure. Dismissal of a "show-me-the-note" action affirmed without comment. 136011P.pdf 05/03/2013 David Lynd v. Charles Ries U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-6011 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Federman, Author, with Nail and Saladino, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. To the extent Lynd requested the bankruptcy court to deviate from the Code and order that his restitution claim be paid from some source not authorized by the Code, the bankruptcy court was without authority to grant such relief, and the court did not err in denying his request. [ May 02, 2013 ]
121713P.pdf 05/02/2013 Harleysville Insurance Company v. Physical Distribution Services U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1713 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. The contract between Physical Distribution and Miller Transporters required Physical Distribution to indemnify Miller for liability it had incurred from an injury to a leased employee; the insurance contract between Physical Distribution and Harleysville, which extended coverage to Physical Distribution's indemnification of third parties for tort liability caused in whole or in part by Physical Distribution or those acting on its behalf, required Harleysville to cover the resulting cost to Physical Distribution. Judge Colloton, dissenting. 122716U.pdf 05/02/2013 United States v. Shawn Jones U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2716 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. No error in admitting results of a photo lineup as it was not impermissible suggestive and defendant had an opportunity at trial to attack the credibility of the witness's identification; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. [ May 01, 2013 ]
103137P.pdf 05/01/2013 B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 10-3137 and No: 11-1247 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Trademarks. For the court's prior opinions in the case, see B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 569 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 2009); and B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, 252 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2001). Assuming that Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decisions may be entitled to preclusive effect, such application is not appropriate here because the same likelihood-of-confusion issues were not decided by the Board as were brought in the action before the district court; the court rejects B&B's argument that the Board's factual findings from a trademark registration case are entitled to deference by the district court; district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the Board's decision into evidence as over the course of the seven-day trial the jury was presented with evidence regarding likelihood of confusion as it pertained to the factors under which the jury decided the claim of trademark infringement and the probative value of the Board's ultimate conclusion was minimal; the district court erred in including an award of attorneys' fees to Hargis for B&B's prior appeal as that appeal resulted in a ruling in B&B's favor and was not groundless or unreasonable; on remand, the court should amend its award of fees by deducting the fees for the appeal. Judge Colloton, dissenting. 122913P.pdf 05/01/2013 United States v. Nathan Ozmon U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2913 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Beam and Bye, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Government did not breach the cooperation agreement when it used defendant's self incriminating statements from his proffer interview; sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. 123535P.pdf 05/01/2013 United States v. Jesus Quintero-Felix U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3535 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Loken, Circuit Judge, and Phillips, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal case. Police officer did not unduly extend the traffic stop once he had issued a warning ticket to defendant and returned his documents as the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on defendant's behavior, his answers to the officer's questions and conflicts between defendant's answers and his passenger's; even assuming the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, defendant consented to extension of the stop; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting its distribution. 123704U.pdf 05/01/2013 Robert Rutz v. Discover Financial Services U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3704 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Arbitration. In an action to overturn an adverse arbitration decision regarding domain names, the district court did not err in dismissing the case as plaintiff failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1114(2)(D)(v) or the RICO statute; nor did the complaint state a contract claim or a tort claim.