Minnesota Lawyer
Administrative Law
Social Security Disability
Denial of Benefits
Where a claimant challenged the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant’s impairments did not meet the mental disorder listing and the finding of residual functional capacity, so the judgment is affirmed.
20-2563 Byrd v. Saul, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Bankruptcy
Notice of Appeal
Timeliness
Where appellant challenged a final order entered by the bankruptcy court denying motions for relief and to reopen the case, the appellant did not seek an extension of time, and the appeal is dismissed as untimely filed.
21-6005 Reichel v. Snyder, Shodeen, J. Appealed from U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota.
Civil Practice
Summary Judgment
Arkansas Case
Where appellant challenged the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment, there was no basis for reversal. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3228 Brazil v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Civil Rights
Failure to Serve
PACER Access
Where appellant challenged the dismissal of a civil rights action, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to properly serve the defendants, and the motion for PACER access is denied as moot. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3199 Walker v. Barnett, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Judicial Immunity
Due Process
Where appellant challenged the dismissal of his action against a state agency and four state judges, the claims against the judges were barred by judicial immunity, his due process claims were precluded by prior state court action, and his equal protection and conspiracy claims also failed, so the judgment is affirmed.
20-2406 Smith v. Allen, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Consumer Law
Debt Collection
Assignment of Debt
Where appellant challenged adverse summary judgment in her action against debt collectors claiming they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the hospital creditor hired the defendant to collect her debt and assignment of the debt to a second defendant created a contract between it and the hospital, and the appellant did not show that the district court improperly construed the law about false debt collection communications or that the court erred when it concluded the collection letter did not include false statements, so there were no violations of the FDCPA, and summary judgment is affirmed.
19-3562 Klein v. The Affiliated Group Inc., Kobes, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Wrongful Foreclosure
Dismissal
Where a homeowner challenged the dismissal of his complaint in an action arising from the alleged wrongful foreclosure of his home, the case was not moot as argued by the homeowner, and the district court properly considered the bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the court also did not abuse its discretion in denying him leave to amend his complaint again. Judgment is affirmed.
19-2868 Rivera v. Bank of America, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Criminal Law
Continuance
Sentencing
Where a defendant challenged the denial of a continuance to evaluate witness statements from three government witnesses, the defendant did not show prejudice, and the judgment is affirmed because the district court did not procedurally err by adding two levels to his offense level. Judgment is affirmed.
20-1654 U.S. v. McArthur, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Habeas Relief
Certificate of Appealability
Where appellant sought a certificate of appealability following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion, the district court erred in dismissing the motion as untimely, but it was not debatable whether the claim was procedurally defaulted or whether the petition stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, so the request is denied.
21-1179 White v. U.S., per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Motion to Suppress
Good-Faith Exception
Where a defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence in a cocaine case, even if a search warrant’s supporting affidavit lacked probable cause, the good-faith exception applied because the judge could have inferred that the defendant stored contraband at his home, and the officer’s reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable, and the judgment is affirmed because the district court did not err in denying the motion for a Franks hearing. Judgment is affirmed.
19-2909 U.S. v. Mayweather, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Appeal Waiver
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug case, the plea agreement included an appeal waiver that was valid and applicable, so the appeal is dismissed.
20-2712 U.S. v. Murray, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Imposition of Fine
Where appellant challenged the imposition of a fine after pleading guilty to wire fraud, which he argued was excessive in light of the large amount of restitution, the district court considered the appropriate factors and was not required to provide detailed findings on each factor, so the imposition of the fine was not clearly erroneous. Judgment is affirmed.
19-3558 U.S. v. Flannery, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Mootness
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after the revocation of supervised release, the defendant was released from prison, so the appeal is moot. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3122 U.S. v. Albizures, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged his sentence for violating the conditions of supervised release, the sentence was substantively reasonable, so the judgment is affirmed.
20-1304 U.S. v. Adams-Reading, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to drug offenses, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, so the judgment is affirmed.
20-2923 U.S. v. Davenport, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Supervised Release
Where a defendant challenged an above-guidelines sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, and the sentence was within the statutory maximum. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3286 U.S. v. Wiley, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Supervised Release
Where a defendant challenged a new term of supervised release and new special conditions after the revocation of supervision, the imposition of the sentence recommended by the defendant foreclosed his challenge to the reasonableness of the term of supervised release, and the district court did not clearly err in imposing special conditions. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2665 U.S. v. Smalley, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sexual Assault
Acquittal Evidence; Sentencing
Where the government introduced evidence of a prior sexual-assault accusation in a prosecution for child sexual abuse, the district court did not err in refusing to admit evidence that the defendant was acquitted of the charge because the evidence of acquittal was irrelevant, violated the hearsay rule and was not admissible as impeachment evidence, and the court also did not err in treating the prior abuse as part of a pattern for sentencing purposes. Judgment is affirmed.
20-1118 U.S. v. Oakie, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Employer – Employee
Employment Discrimination
Dismissal
Where appellant challenged the dismissal of her employment-discrimination complaint, there was no basis for reversal. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3364 Macon v. Arkansas Workers Compensation Commission, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Immigration
Asylum
Past Persecution
Where a petitioner from Guatemala sought review of decisions including the denial of her application for asylum, the events described by the petitioner did not amount to past persecution, and she failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, and substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, so the petition for review is denied.
20-3055 Chitic-Pol v. Garland, per curiam. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Asylum
Removal; Khat Possession
Where petitioner from Somalia challenged his removability and sought asylum, a conviction for possession of khat under Minnesota law was a crime related to a federal controlled substance, so he was removable, and the board did not err in determining that he failed to carry his burden of proving entitlement to asylum. Petition denied in part; dismissed in part.
19-3480 Ahmed v. Garland, Stras, J. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Motion to Reopen
Due Process
Where a petitioner sought review of the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings, the petitioner’s due process claim was without merit, and the Board of Immigration did not abuse its discretion by denying the untimely motion. Petition denied.
20-2904 Elias-Huinac v. Garland, per curiam. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Removal
Prior Conviction
Where a petitioner from Mexico challenged the finding that a 2011 Iowa conviction for possession of a controlled substance disqualified him from cancellation of removal, the Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in determining that the conviction disqualified him, and there was no error in denying the motion for reconsideration. Petition denied.
19-3032 Arroyo v. Garland, Melloy, J. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
