OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m.
Today is: [ Saturday November 07, 2009 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY
The most recent opinions are for: [ 11/06/2009 ] 
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.
083638U.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Andre Dodds
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3638
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
[UNPUBLISHED][Per Curiam - Before Loken, Chief Judge, and
Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for distributing crack; defendant's prior burglary and drug convictions were properly counted as violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and the district court did not err in sentencing defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 083645P.pdf 11/06/2009 Charles Sell v. USA Dept. of Justice U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3645 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED][Wollman, Author, with Hansen and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. District court did not err in finding that Sell's condition did not toll the two-year statute of limitations applicable to FTCA action as he had the knowledge and wherewithal to bring the action on a timely basis; district court did not err in finding that the continuous treatment exception did not apply. 083807P.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Michael Jones U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3807 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Bright, Author, with Murphy and Riley, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the seizure of an open duffel bag of marijuana as the officers found the bag during a lawful protective sweep, and the marijuana was visible in the open bag; in a prosecution for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, the district court did not err in refusing to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple possession of methamphetamine as that instruction was not supported by the evidence, including defendant's own testimony in which he admitted he shared the drugs with others. 083878P.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Joe Madison U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3878 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City [PUBLISHED][Riley, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Sentencing. Where a district court has authority to sentence below a statutory minimum only by virtue of a government motion under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e), the reduction must be based exclusively on assistance-related considerations; here, a review of the sentencing transcripts and memorandum established that the district court impermissibly considered the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) factors, rather than relying exclusively on assistance-related factors, in determining to depart below the mandatory minimum sentence; case remanded for resentencing. 091432P.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Anthony Collier U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 09-1432 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED][Loken, Chief Judge, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Prisoner case - habeas. Defendant waived his argument that the district court committed procedural error by treating the Guidelines as mandatory and by failing to consider the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) in this resentencing proceeding; even if the contentions were not waived, the district court did not commit plain error; the court provided an adequate explanation for its sentencing decision; claim that the court erred in not making his federal sentence concurrent with an undischarged state sentence was procedurally barred as it had not been raised in defendant's direct appeal; further, defendant waived the issue when he stated he was not seeking concurrent sentence and was seeking, instead, credit for time served.
Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for distributing crack; defendant's prior burglary and drug convictions were properly counted as violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and the district court did not err in sentencing defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 083645P.pdf 11/06/2009 Charles Sell v. USA Dept. of Justice U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3645 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED][Wollman, Author, with Hansen and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. District court did not err in finding that Sell's condition did not toll the two-year statute of limitations applicable to FTCA action as he had the knowledge and wherewithal to bring the action on a timely basis; district court did not err in finding that the continuous treatment exception did not apply. 083807P.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Michael Jones U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3807 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Bright, Author, with Murphy and Riley, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the seizure of an open duffel bag of marijuana as the officers found the bag during a lawful protective sweep, and the marijuana was visible in the open bag; in a prosecution for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, the district court did not err in refusing to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple possession of methamphetamine as that instruction was not supported by the evidence, including defendant's own testimony in which he admitted he shared the drugs with others. 083878P.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Joe Madison U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-3878 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City [PUBLISHED][Riley, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Sentencing. Where a district court has authority to sentence below a statutory minimum only by virtue of a government motion under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e), the reduction must be based exclusively on assistance-related considerations; here, a review of the sentencing transcripts and memorandum established that the district court impermissibly considered the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) factors, rather than relying exclusively on assistance-related factors, in determining to depart below the mandatory minimum sentence; case remanded for resentencing. 091432P.pdf 11/06/2009 United States v. Anthony Collier U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 09-1432 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED][Loken, Chief Judge, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Prisoner case - habeas. Defendant waived his argument that the district court committed procedural error by treating the Guidelines as mandatory and by failing to consider the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) in this resentencing proceeding; even if the contentions were not waived, the district court did not commit plain error; the court provided an adequate explanation for its sentencing decision; claim that the court erred in not making his federal sentence concurrent with an undischarged state sentence was procedurally barred as it had not been raised in defendant's direct appeal; further, defendant waived the issue when he stated he was not seeking concurrent sentence and was seeking, instead, credit for time served.