113189P.pdf   11/29/2013  United States  v.  Milo Davis
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3189
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Bye and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court for 
   reconsideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct 2151 (2013. 
   For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see U.S. v. Davis, 690 F.3d 
   912 (8th Cir. 2012). Having reconsidered Davis's appeal as directed by the 
   Supreme Court, the court again affirms the district court's judgment and 
   reinstates all but Part II.F. of the opinion; any Alleyne error was 
   harmless. 
  
113189P.pdf   08/22/2012  United States  v.  Milo Davis
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3189
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Bye and Melloy, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Criminal Law and Sentencing. Evidence was sufficient
   to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack and
   cocaine and for money laundering; claim of unconstitutional pre-
   indictment delay rejected; refusal of defense witness to identify his drug
   sources on cross-examination justified striking his testimony as his
   refusal deprived the government of the ability to fully cross examine him
   by testing his assertion that he had not engaged in drug dealing with
   defendant; district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's
   proposed instruction on spoilation of evidence where he failed to show
   the destroyed videotape was exculpatory or had been destroyed in bad
   faith; no error in refusing to give defendant's proposed multiple
   conspiracies instruction; district court did not abuse its discretion n
   refusing to remove a juror after she disclosed her familiarity with the
   Assistant U.S. Attorney and a Special Agent witness as she did not
   answer the voir dire questions about the men in a deliberately dishonest
   fashion or out of partiality, took immediate steps to alert the court as soon
   as she recalled past contacts and unequivocally affirmed her ability to be
   impartial; any error in failing to apply the Fair Sentencing Act
   retroactively was harmless under the facts of the case.