| 2015/04/01 | 13-1048P.01A | 13-1048 | US v. Foley District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/01 | 13-1048P.01A | 13-1118 | US v. Foley District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/01 | 13-2136P.01A | 13-2136 | US v. Melendez-Rivera District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/01 | 13-2176P.01A | 13-2176 | US v. Razo District Court of Maine, Bangor |
| 2015/04/01 | 13-2384P.01A | 13-2384 | Montanez Allman v. Garcia-Padilla District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/01 | 14-1001P.01A | 14-1001 | Law Offices of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer Law Firm District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/01 | 14-1370P.01A | 14-1370 | Matusevich v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Com District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/03 | 13-1543P.01A | 13-1543 | US v. Szpyt District Court of Maine, Portland |
| 2015/04/03 | 13-1550P.01A | 13-1550 | Dimova v. Holder, Jr. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) |
| 2015/04/03 | 13-1550P.01A | 13-2013 | Dimova v. Holder Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) |
| 2015/04/03 | 13-2205P.01A | 13-2205 | US v. Romero-Galindez District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/03 | 14-1018E.01A | 14-1018 | AFDI v. MBTA District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/03 | 14-1018E.01A | 14-1289 | AFDI v. MBTA District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/03 | 14-1050P.01A | 14-1050 | Aponte-Ramos v. Alvarez-Rubio District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/03 | 14-1050P.01A | 14-1052 | Diaz-Vazquez v. Alvarez-Rubio District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/03 | 14-1450E.01A | 14-1450 | Dutkewych v. Standard Insurance Company District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/03 | 14-1466P.01A | 14-1466 | Perry v. Roy District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/06 | 13-1050P.01A | 13-1050 | US v. Del-Valle-Cruz District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/06 | 14-1297P.01A | 14-1297 | Torres-Rivera v. Lozada-Crespo District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/06 | 14-1912P.01A | 14-1912 | Santangelo v. New York Life Insurance Co. District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/07 | 13-2397U.01A | 13-2397 | US v. Cruz-Fernandez District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/07 | 14-1001E.01A | 14-1001 | Law Offices of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer Law Firm District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/07 | 14-1015U.01A | 14-1015 | US v. Sweeney District Court of Maine, Bangor |
| 2015/04/07 | 14-1580P.01A | 14-1580 | Cronin v. Commissioner of Probation District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/09 | 14-1286E.01A | 14-1286 | US v. Carpenter District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/09 | 14-1298U.01A | 14-1298 | Montanez v. Mitchell District of Massachusetts, Boston |
| 2015/04/09 | 14-1368P.01A | 14-1368 | US v. Oquendo-Garcia District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
| 2015/04/09 | 14-1701U.01A | 14-1701 | Clark v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. District Court of Maine, Bangor |
| 2015/04/10 | 13-1674P.01A | 13-1674 | US v. Torres-Landrua District Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan |
Second Circuit:
| Lugo v. Holder | 04-09-2015 | OPN |
| Continental Terminals, Inc. v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor | 04-03-2015 | OPN |
| Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. FERC | 04-02-2015 | OPN |
| Smith et al., v. Campbell | 04-01-2015 | OPN |
| Ortiz-Franco v. Holder | 04-01-2015 | OPN |
Third Circuit:
Filed 04/10/15, No. 11-3996
Michael Siluk, Jr. v. Catherine Merwin
USDC for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Filed 04/09/15, No. 14-1402
Jose Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison
USDC for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Filed 04/08/15, No. 12-4067
In re: Blood Reagents Antitrus v.
USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Filed 04/07/15, No. 14-1816
Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA
USDC for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Filed 04/07/15, No. 13-4434
Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Secretary United States Depart
USDC for the District of New Jersey
Fourth Circuit:
131031.P Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc. (Floyd 4/3/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Affirmed
Civil Private (DMD Williams)
134895.P US v. Abukar Beyle (Wilkinson 4/3/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Affirmed
Criminal (EDVA Smith)
122034.P West Virginia CWP Fund v. Page Bender, Jr. (Keenan 4/2/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Petition for review denied
Agency Review (BRB)
122273.P Clifton Valentine v. Sugar Rock, Inc. (King 4/2/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
Civil Private (NDWV Keeley)
134412.P US v. Steven Helton (Wilkinson 4/2/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Affirmed
Criminal (SDWV Berger)
137445.P US v. Abel Rangel (Agee 4/1/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Affirmed
28 USC Section 2255 (EDVA Hilton)
141122.P Charles vonRosenberg v. Mark Lawrence (Motz 3/31/2015)
Published opinion after argument: Vacated and remanded
Civil Private (DSC Houck)
Fifth Circuit:
| 10-70016 | 04/06/2015 | John Matamoros v. William Stephens, Director | pub | |
| 13-11358 | 04/02/2015 | Jerrell Squyres v. Heico Companies, L.L.C., et al | pub | |
| 13-30918 | 04/08/2015 | Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C., et al v. Haydel Enterp | pub | |
| 13-31214 | 04/07/2015 | Gulf Restoration Network, et al v. Gina McCarthy, | pub | |
| 13-50075 | 04/09/2015 | Barron & Newburger, P.C. v. Texas Skyline, Limited | pub | |
| 13-50745 | 04/06/2015 | USA v. Marco Alvarado-Zarza | pub | |
| 13-70001 | 03/31/2015 | William Speer v. William Stephens, Director | pub | |
| 14-10049 | 04/07/2015 | Christopher Crane, et al v. Jeh Johnson, et al | pub | |
| 14-10287 | 04/03/2015 | USA v. Fermin Rodriguez-Bernal | pub | |
| 14-10631 | 04/02/2015 | Campbell Harrison & Dagley, et al v. Albert Hill, | pub | |
| 14-20433 | 04/07/2015 | PoolRe Insurance Corporation, et al v. Organizatio | pub | |
| 14-30357 | 03/31/2015 | USA v. Sealed Juvenile | pub | |
| 14-40059 | 03/31/2015 | USA v. Elmer Gomez-Alvarez | pub | |
| 14-40168 | 04/09/2015 | USA v. Jose Mendoza | pub | |
| 14-40455 | 04/09/2015 | Robert Ortega v. William Stephens, Director | pub | |
| 14-60366 | 04/06/2015 | Gayle McMullin v. MS Dept of Public Safety, et al | pub | |
| 14-70025 | 04/06/2015 | Daniel Lopez v. William Stephens, Director | pub | |
| 15-70004 | 04/01/2015 | Garcia White, et al v. Brad Livingston, et al | pub |
Sixth Circuit:
| 15a0057p.06 | 13-6349 | 2015/03/31 | USA v. Patrick Winters Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga |
| 15a0058p.06 | 13-1091 | 2015/04/01 | Maple Drive Farms v. Tom Vilsack Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids |
| 15a0059p.06 | 13-6649 | 2015/04/03 | USA v. Donald Melton Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland |
| 15a0060p.06 | 13-4105 | 2015/04/06 | Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc. Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 15a0061p.06 | 14-3117 | 2015/04/06 | Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc. Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 15a0062p.06 | 13-4057 | 2015/04/06 | USA v. United Technologies Southern District of Ohio at Dayton |
| 15a0063p.06 | 14-1680 | 2015/04/06 | Planet Aid v. City of St. Johns, MI Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids |
| 15a0064p.06 | 14-1687 | 2015/04/07 | Angel Garcia v. FNMA Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids |
| 15a0065p.06 | 13-4468 | 2015/04/08 | Henricks v. Pickaway Corr. Inst. Southern District of Ohio at Columbus |
| 15a0066p.06 | 12-2484 | 2015/04/10 | EEOC v. Ford Motor Company Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor |
| 15a0067p.06 | 13-4188 | 2015/04/10 | USA v. Joshua Stafford Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
Seventh Circuit:
| 13-3521 | Gennadiy Volodarskiy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. | civil | 04/10/2015 | Final Opinion | Sykes |
| 14-2301 | Aircraft Check Services Compan v. Verizon Wireless | civil | 04/09/2015 | Final Opinion | Posner |
| 14-2599 | Brenda Mitze v. Carolyn Colvin | civil | 04/09/2015 | Final Opinion | Posner |
| 14-3012 | Matthew Stanek v. Saint Charles Community Unit | civil | 04/09/2015 | Final Opinion | Wood |
| 14-1223 | USA v. Parrish Kappes | criminal | 04/08/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 14-2135 | USA v. David L. Crisp, Jr. | criminal | 04/08/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 14-2482 | USA v. Jeffrey Jurgens | criminal | 04/08/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 14-1435 | USA v. Mark Bozovich | criminal | 04/07/2015 | Final Opinion | Hamilton |
| 14-1889 | Mohamed Mathin v. John F. Kerry | civil | 04/07/2015 | Final Opinion | Rovner |
| 14-2743 | USA v. Gary France | criminal | 04/07/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 13-3732 | USA v. All Funds on Deposit with R.J. | civil | 04/02/2015 | Final Opinion | Kanne |
| 13-3732 | USA v. All Funds on Deposit with R.J. | civil | 04/02/2015 | Final Opinion | Manion concurs and dissents |
| 13-3738 | USA v. Art Insurance Company | civil | 04/02/2015 | Final Opinion | Kanne |
| 13-3738 | USA v. Art Insurance Company | civil | 04/02/2015 | Final Opinion | Manion concurs and dissents |
| 14-3213 | Brian T. Sullivan v. Michael R. Glenn, Jr. | bankruptcy from district court | 04/02/2015 | Final Opinion | Posner |
| 13-3818 | Ramon Alvarado v. Corporate Cleaning Services, I | civil | 04/01/2015 | Final Opinion | Posner |
| 14-2411 | Tie Xia Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. | agency | 04/01/2015 | Final Opinion | PerCuriam |
| 13-2200 | USA v. David Lockett | criminal | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Bauer |
| 14-1171 | Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. Plano Molding Company | civil | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Flaum |
| 14-1189 | Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Plano Molding Company | civil | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Flaum |
| 14-1237 | USA v. Christian Miller | criminal | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 14-1585 | USA v. Frank Jordan | criminal | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 14-1592 | USA v. Joshua Bowser | criminal | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Tinder |
| 14-2069 | USA v. George Curtis | criminal | 03/31/2015 | Final Opinion | Rovner |
Eighth Circuit:
133067P.pdf 04/10/2015 Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3067 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Bright and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Corps' issuance of an Approved Jurisdiction Determination that plaintiffs' property constitutes "waters of the United States" within the meaning of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, thereby requiring plaintiffs to obtain a permit to discharge dredged or filled materials into the "navigable waters, was a final agency action for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of a final agency action. Judge Kelly, concurring. 133769P.pdf 04/10/2015 United States v. Billie Batemon U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3769 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. District court's action in relieving defendant's counsel of his appointment after the court imposed sentence on defendant did not prejudice defendant; an argument that defendant meant to move to withdraw his plea by his comments, in which he complained about counsel's handling of the case and asserted his innocence, and was prejudiced because an attorney would have better formulated the request, is rejected as Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(3) forbids the withdrawal of a plea after sentence is imposed; while the district court did not provide defendant the information required under Rule 11(b)(1)(M), defendant has failed to show that absent this error he would have proceeded to trial, and the error was harmless; while the district court did not technically comply with Rule 32(i)(1)(A)'s requirement that the court verify that defendant had read and discussed the presentence report with counsel, the error did not affect any substantial right. 141084P.pdf 04/10/2015 United States v. Lodgy Jackson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1084 and No: 14-1488 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court's advice to defendant Jackson at the change-of-plea hearing that he could not withdraw his plea even if the court did not impose the sentence the government recommended fulfilled the court's obligations under Rule 11(c)(3)(B); Jackson's 400-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable; no error in applying the first-degree-murder cross-reference set forth in Guidelines Sec. 2A1.1 in sentencing defendant O'Bryant as application of the cross-reference did not violate defendant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights; Alleyne does not prevent application of the cross-reference as application does not increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum or increase the mandatory minimum sentence; evidence was sufficient to support the application; defendant O'Bryant's 330-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 141237P.pdf 04/10/2015 United States v. Michael McMahan U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1237 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Bright and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. No error in applying a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight where defendant fled at high speed from a drug arrest and then ran into a person's home to elude capture. 141520P.pdf 04/10/2015 St. Louis Effort For AIDS v. John Huff U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1520 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Missouri Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act. Where the district court enjoined any attempt by Missouri under its Health Insurance and Marketplace Innovation Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec 376.2000 et seq)to regulate the certified application counselors created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to assist in the enrollment of applicants under the ACA, the district court ignored the limited preemption effect created by Sec. 18041(d) of the ACA and should have issued a more limited injunction enjoining only certain portions of the Missouri statute; the district court's injunction is limited to Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 376.2002.(3),(5) and 376.2008; Section 376.2010.1 - the Missouri Act's remedial provision - did not implicate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and the section should not be enjoined. 142146P.pdf 04/10/2015 United States v. Leslie Armstrong U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2146 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In a prosecution for distribution of crack, the district court did not commit a Rule 404(b) error by admitting evidence concerning an earlier, uncharged drug sale, as the government proved defendant's participation in that earlier deal by a preponderance of the evidence; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for distribution of crack; no error in sentencing defendant as a career offender under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1 as his 1991 and 1992 drug offenses were properly counted as separate offenses. [ April 09, 2015 ] 132834P.pdf 04/09/2015 Kendrick Story v. Maxcie Foote U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-2834 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Bye and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a visual body-cavity search of his person when he returned to the correctional facility from outside the institution, the male officers conducting the search did not violate plaintiff's rights by performing the search in a location where it might be viewed by a female officer in a master video control room or where other male inmates might be present; use of a derogatory term during the search did not rise to the level of racial harassment; as a result, plaintiff did not allege sufficient acts to support a plausible claim that the search violated his clearly established constitutional rights, and the district court did not err in dismissing the case prior to service. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 133255P.pdf 04/09/2015 PHL Variable Insurance Company v. Midas Life Settlements LLC U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3255 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. In action to rescind a $10 million life-insurance policy, the district court did not err in rescinding the policy as it was obtained through gross, material misrepresentations of the insured's worth and income; where the insured simply signed a blank policy application without supplying any truthful answers, Minnesota courts would not apply their "Pomerenke rule" which provides coverage when the insured provided truthful information and the insurer's agent recorded incorrect information; Minnesota law did not impose a duty on the insurer to reasonably investigate the policy application, and the insurer is not equitably estopped from rescinding the policy. 133331P.pdf 04/09/2015 United States v. Bradley Cook U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3331 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. 18 U.S.C. Section 1591 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant's prosecution for commercial sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; the plain language of the statute gave defendant adequate warning that his conduct in purchasing commercial sex acts was criminal, and the statute's mens rea requirement is sufficiently narrow to avoid arbitrary enforcement. 141436P.pdf 04/09/2015 Santiago Martinez-Galarza v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1436 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration - Bloomington, MN Immigration Proceeding. Petitioner did not establish eligibility for asylum as he failed to show that his fear of persecution was on account of his membership in a particular social group; petitioner's fear of harm was, in fact, based on his fear of retribution from a person who had a personal grudge against him; petitioner had waived his claims for withholding of removability, CAT protection and voluntary departure, and the court would not consider them. [ April 07, 2015 ] 133743P.pdf 04/07/2015 Lucinda Dalton v. Manor Care of West Des Moines U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3743 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Family Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered from a serious health condition resulting in an inability to work; her short-term conditions did not rise to the level of a serious health condition and the FMLA did not protect her from discipline based on her failure to complete work; even if plaintiff had a chronic serious health condition so that a hospital visit was FMLA-protected, the district court did not err in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment because defendant terminated plaintiff for reasons other than her work absences. 141187P.pdf 04/07/2015 Larry Flynt v. George Lombardi U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1187 and No: 14-1202 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. Flynt sought to intervene in two Missouri death penalty cases, asserting he had an interest in sealed records in the cases as a publisher and advocate against the death penalty, and the district court denied his motion to intervene. To the extent the district court denied the motions because it believed Rule 24(b) intervention was the incorrect procedural mechanism, the court applied the wrong standard in holding Flynt's generalized interest in the subjects of the two cases did not justify intervention; the requirement that the movant's claim or defense and the main action have questions of law or fact in common is not generally required in cases where a party seeks to intervene to unseal judicial records; it is the public's interest in the confidentiality of the records that -in the language of Rule 24(b)(2)- is a question of law in common between the parties and the would-be intervenor; accordingly, Rule 24(b) intervention is the proper procedural mechanism for Flynt to intervene in the case, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. 141954P.pdf 04/07/2015 Calvin Carrick v. Mike Beebe U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1954 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff had no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on his citations for violating municipal ordinances because they were not serious offenses, and his Sixth Amendment and ancillary due process claims fail. 146032P.pdf 04/07/2015 Joseph R. Wilson v. Michael A. Walker U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-6032 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [PUBLISHED] [Schermer, Author, with Kressel and Nail, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in finding debtor Walker did not owe a debt to Wilson and that Wilson had no cause of action under Section 523 as the contracts under which Wilson sought recovery were unconscionable and Wilson had not shown any loss of investment; likewise, there was no basis upon which to deny debtor Walker a discharge under Section 727. 146036P.pdf 04/07/2015 O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Financial Serv. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-6036 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [PUBLISHED] [Kressel, Author, with Schermer and Nail, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Debtor was not an aggrieved party and did not have standing to appeal the order confirming its plan; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ April 06, 2015 ] 133676P.pdf 04/06/2015 LaMonte Martin v. Jessica Symmes U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3676 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), the Supreme Court announced a procedural rule that is not of watershed magnitude and, as such, the decision does not apply retroactively on collateral review; Batson challenge rejected. 141127P.pdf 04/06/2015 Terry Draper v. City of Festus, Missouri U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1127 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment. City's denial of plaintiff's attorney's request to postpone a post-termination hearing did not deprive plaintiff of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process in the circumstances of the case; nor did it deprive him of his right to substantive due process; no error in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's conspiracy claim; the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff's actions as City Administrator were, at least, misfeasance, and the City did not breach his contract by terminating him for the acts; decision to terminate plaintiff was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and no violation of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act occurred. 141428P.pdf 04/06/2015 United States v. Marquis Leval Cotton U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1428 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Officers had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and they had grounds to support a Terry stop; defendant's actions in reaching for his waistband, combined with other circumstances, gave the officers a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous and gave them grounds to detain him and conduct a Terry frisk. 142518P.pdf 04/06/2015 United States v. Kerajia Williamson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2518 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion by making defendant's sentences consecutive; district court adequately explained its sentencing decision, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ April 03, 2015 ] 142621P.pdf 04/03/2015 United States v. James Bolt U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2621 and No: 14-2623 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Loken and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. No error in calculating the amount of loss in this fraud scheme as the court could consider uncharged relevant conduct in determining the loss; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(10); no error in departing upwards based on an underrepresented criminal history. 142704P.pdf 04/03/2015 United States v. Kendall Woodall U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2704 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. In this SORNA conviction, the district court erred in imposing a special condition in defendant's supervised release which prohibited from consuming alcohol or going to bars as the district court's condition relied predominantly on a factual conclusion of drug dependency without linking it to another factor such as mental health; the court did not err in imposing a special condition barring unapproved contact with minors as defendant had a serious sex offense conviction and his failure to register as a sex offender and his failure to complete a prescribed sex offender treatment program were directly related to potential recidivism. [ April 01, 2015 ] 133607P.pdf 04/01/2015 Robl Construction, Inc. v. Andrew Homoly U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3607 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. The district court erred in granting defendant Homoly's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Robl's breach of contract claims as there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Homloy authorized and personally guaranteed all or part of a loan in accordance with the parties' agreement. Judge Smith, dissenting.
[ March 31, 2015 ] 141123P.pdf 03/31/2015 United States v. Randy Never Misses A Shot U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1123 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. The district court's comments to the prosecution at a sidebar regarding a possible deficiency in its evidence and the court's decision to permit the government to reopen its case-in-chief were not an abuse of the court' discretion and did not prejudice defendant because the jury did not hear the comments and the evidence at that point was, in any event, sufficient to convict defendant on the count; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for sexual abuse of a minor; the court did not err in rejecting defendant's request for a lesser-included-offense of simple assault; no error in admitting the testimony of six Rule 413 and 414 witnesses as the court concluded the conduct covered by their testimony was similar enough to the conduct charged to prove propensity; even if the admission of six witnesses' testimony raised Rule 403 concerns, any error was harmless in light of the other evidence of propensity; no error in excluding evidence of past sexual assault against a victim under Rule 412.Ninth Circuit:
Tenth Circuit:
See site. (Impossible to tell which non current-day opinions are published, and which aren't.)
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions/daily
Eleventh Circuit:
| U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., et al | 13-11976 | 6:09-cv-01963-JA-GJK | NEW | 04-09-2015 |
| USA v. Michael Renard Albury, Jr. | 12-15183 | 8:11-cr-00410-SDM-TBM-1 | NEW | 04-09-2015 |
| Earl E. Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al | 13-14590 | 3:09-cv-13602-MMH-JBT | NEW | 04-08-2015 |
| Hugh A. Carithers, et al v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company | 14-11639 | 3:12-cv-00890-MMH-PDB | NEW | 04-07-2015 |
| USA v. Mark Mason Alexander | 14-10253 | 4:11-cr-00036-HLM-WEJ-1 | NEW | 04-07-2015 |
| USA v. Emmanuel Asante | 13-15651 | 1:13-cr-00350-SCJ-1 | NEW | 04-06-2015 |
| USA v. Adrian Velazquez | 13-14132 | 1:13-cr-20231-UU-2 | CON | 04-03-2015 |
| USA v. Yolanda Sosa | 13-14141 | 1:13-cr-20231-UU-1 | NEW | 04-03-2015 |
| USA v. Alexander Dimitrovski | 14-12417 | 1:13-cr-20557-KMW-3 | NEW | 04-02-2015 |
| Richard Moss v. City of Pembroke Pines, et al | 14-11240 | 0:11-cv-62595-WJZ | NEW | 03-31-2015 |
Federal Circuit:
| 2015-04-10 | 14-1297 | DCT | OPLUS TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. v. VIZIO, INC. [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-10 | 14-1728 | DCT | AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING v. LEE [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-09 | 14-5019 | CFC | MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INS v. US [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-09 | 14-1065 | DCT | INSITE VISION INCORPORATED v. SANDOZ, INC. [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-07 | 14-1221 | DCT | ASTRAZENECA AB v. APOTEX CORP. [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-07 | 14-5015 | CFC | SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION v. US [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-06 | 14-5060 | CFC | PRAIRIE COUNTY, MONTANA v. US [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-03 | 14-1096 | DCT | VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC. v. TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC. [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-02 | 14-5018 | CFC | HOPI TRIBE v. US [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-04-01 | 14-1724 | DCT | INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. [OPINION] | Precedential |
| 2015-03-31 | 14-1282 | DCT | APOTEX INC. v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. [OPINION] | Precedential |
DC Circuit:
14-5122Adirondack Medical Center v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell
04/10/2015
13-1261Jared Clark v. FLRA
04/07/2015
13-1278Missouri Public Service Comm. v. FERC
04/07/2015
12-3007USA v. Khaled Shabban
04/03/2015
13-7109Nasrin Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran
04/03/2015
14-1039FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, v. FCC