[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The court finds no basis for reversing the BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceeding.
You are here
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence imposed by the district court when it revoked defendant's supervised release was within the statutory maximum and was not substantively unreasonable.
[PUBLISHED] [Schermer, Author, with Shodeen and Sanberg, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in determining the Richards were equitably estopped from claiming ownership in certain machinery and equipment.
[PUBLISHED] [Grasz, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title IX. Plaintiff was removed from Drake's Board of Trustees for a conflict of interest after he took actions advocating his son's position in a pending Title IX matter; as a matter of law plaintiff cannot hold the University liable under Title IX for the Board of Trustees' decision to remove him from the Board; Plaintiff cannot state a claim that the University retaliated against him by prohibiting from serving as his son's advocate during campus hearings as the complaint fails to allege that the son asked him to serve as the son's personal representative under the Code of Conduct and that such a request was denied by the University; even if plaintiff was prevented from attending his son's Title IX hearing, the complaint fails to allege facts showing a nexus between his inability to attend the hearing and his alleged complaints to the Board; none of the actions plaintiff alleges the University took against him in retaliation for his activities were part of an education program or activity and he lacks standing to bring suit under 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a); with respect to plaintiff's disability retaliation claim, plaintiff failed to show the reasons the University and Board gave for its actions were pretexts for disability discrimination; viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, he served on the Board as an unpaid, uncompensated volunteer and his claim that his termination violated an alleged contract must fail for lack of consideration.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Dismissal of Section 1983 action affirmed without comment.
[PUBLISHED] [Kobes, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Employers' Liability Act. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a specific instruction based on Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Instruction 15.70's optional list of damages where it concluded that plaintiff's evidence was not sufficient to support a claim of future damages; giving the generic instruction did not impact plaintiff's substantial rights, and the instruction given permitted the jury to consider the full range of alleged damages, including future damages.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
[PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in applying a four-level increase under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense - see U.S. v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014); the district court did err, however, in applying a two-level increase under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.4 for using a minor to commit the offense as the evidence did not establish that the defendant acted affirmatively to involve the minor in the crime; engaging in an arm's length transaction in which defendant traded marijuana and cash to the minor for the firearm was not sufficient to show defendant used the minor to commit the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; remanded for resentencing.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Given the sentencing record, the sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's supervised release, and the within-guidelines sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.