OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m.
Today is:  [ Monday March 25, 2019 ]  - - - - -  NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY  
The most recent opinions are for:  [ 03/22/2019 ]   

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.


172111P.pdf  03/22/2019  Dennis Thomas Thompson  v.  Nancy A. Berryhill
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-2111
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Social Security. The district court did not err in dismissing 
   claimant's action as the complaint was untimely and he failed to establish 
   grounds for equitable tolling. 
  

172492P.pdf  03/22/2019  Walter Engelhardt  v.  Qwest Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-2492
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Fair Labor Standards Act. In action alleging a FLSA 
   retaliation claim, defendant provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory ground 
   - lack of productivity - for terminating plaintiff, and he failed to show 
   the stated ground was a pretext for retaliation for his participation in 
   an earlier FLSA law suit; with respect to plaintiff's Minnesota 
   Whistleblower's Act claim, the district court did not err in determining 
   he was an independent contractor and lacked standing to bring the claim; 
   claim for tortious interference was properly dismissed as neither 
   defendant had violated federal or state law or committed an act that was 
   independently tortious. 
  

172567P.pdf  03/22/2019  Ronald Buckler  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-2567
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Benton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. In suit alleging plaintiff's 
   injuries were caused in part by a federal mine inspector's inadequate 
   inspection of the mine where he worked, Missouri law provides that a 
   negligent inspection can give rise to liability under Missouri's Good 
   Samaritan doctrine; while this court has not dealt with the issue, the 
   circuit courts which have addressed the claim have concluded that MSHA 
   inspectors' duties involve elements of judgment, discretion and choice for 
   purposes of the discretionary-function exception to FTCA liablity; with 
   respect to the duties plaintiff alleges the inspector breached - 
   disseminating safety information, inspecting equipment and observing all 
   mining cycles, and reviewing worker training documentation - the 
   discretionary-function exception applied to all of them with the exception 
   of the inspector's duty to carry out a non-discretionary and mandatory 
   review of training records; the case is remanded on this limited 
   exception. 
  

173658U.pdf  03/22/2019  United States  v.  Thomas Robert Page
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-3658
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken and 
   Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's restitution order under 
   the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is affirmed as the decision to award 
   restitution was not an abuse of discretion and the calculation of the 
   award amount was not clearly erroneous. 
  

173734U.pdf  03/22/2019  Darren Holter  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   17-3734
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Denial of Section 2255 motion is vacated, and the 
   matter is remanded to the district court to determine whether Holter has 
   shown he was more likely than not sentenced as an armed career criminal 
   under the residual clause. See Walker v. U.S., 900 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 
   2018). If Holter makes this showing, the court should determine if the 
   error is harmless. If he fails to carry his burden, the Sec. 2255 motion 
   should be denied. 
  

181439P.pdf  03/22/2019  Corrie Nelson  v.  USAble Mutual Insurance Co.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   18-1439
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In this action alleging the defendant employer 
   failed to promote plaintiff because of her race, the employer articulated 
   a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its hiring selection and 
   plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the stated reason was a pretext for 
   discrimination. 
  

181564U.pdf  03/22/2019  United States  v.  Martin Avalos-Rico
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   18-1564
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Melloy and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. In this prosecution for illegal reentry after 
   deportation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 
   term of supervised release in order to provide an added measure of 
   deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of the case 
   - see Guidelines Sec. 5D1.1(c); district court adequately explained its 
   sentencing decision; bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence was not 
   substantively unreasonable given defendant's extensive criminal record. 
  

182183P.pdf  03/22/2019  United States  v.  Dashown Keys
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   18-2183
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Erickson, Circuit Judge, and Magnuson, 
   District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. In this prosecution for 
   aggravated sexual abuse of a child and two counts of abusive sexual 
   contact of a child, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
   admitting evidence of another sexual assault of a minor as the act was 
   committed in a similar manner and during the same time period as the 
   charges; the probative value of the testimony outweighed the danger of 
   unfair prejudice and the evidence was properly admitted under Rules 403 
   and 413; the district court's comment to the child witness "to try to 
   answer the questions so that you can get off the stand" did not deprive 
   defendant of his right to a fair trial before a neutral and impartial 
   judicial officer; the court interjected itself only when the victim was 
   struggling to deal with the situation and no reasonable juror would 
   interpret the court's comment as favoring the prosecution; no error in 
   limiting the testimony of a defense witness regarding a financial dispute 
   between defendant and one victim's parents and his beliefs regarding 
   defendant's reasons for giving gifts to the victim; district court 
   adequately explained why it was denying defendant's motion for a variance 
   to avoid sentencing disparities; the court has repeatedly refused to 
   require district court judges to compare and contrast the defendant being 
   sentencing with allegedly similar prior offenders; here, the court's 
   justification for a 540-month sentence rests precisely on the kind of 
   defendant-specific determinations which are within the special competence 
   of sentencing courts. 
  

182684U.pdf  03/22/2019  United States  v.  Robert Odell
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   18-2684
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Court would not consider claims 
   of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal; defendant's 
   other issues fell within the scope of his knowing and voluntary appeal 
   waiver, and the appeal is dismissed.