Printer Friendly

8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Jan. 25.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

CRIMINAL OPINIONS   Sentencing Crime of Violence Missouri Law Where a defendant argued at sentencing that his Missouri conviction for second-degree assault was not a crime of violence since the statute criminalized reckless rather than intentional conduct, the judgment is affirmed because under circuit precedent reckless conduct causing injury to another by the use of a firearm constitutes a use of force under the guidelines. Concurring opinion by Kelly, J.: It remains an open question in our circuit whether a statute that criminalizes the discharge of a firearm toward an occupied building or motor vehicle qualifies as a violent felony under the force clause. 36 F.3d at 955 (citing United States v. Jordan, 12 F.3d 113, 1167 (th Cir. 2016)). Similarly, whether the statute in question here, Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.060.1(5), requires that the force be used against the person of another also remains undecided. Judgment is affirmed. 16-432 U.S. v. Ramey, appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Colloton, J.   Sentencing Error Coram Nobis Where a defendant challenged his sentence by filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis since he was no longer in custody, the court finds that such a petition is subject to the restrictions on second or successive habeas corpus petitions, and dismissal of the petition is affirmed because the District Court properly found that there was no fundamental error, and the defendant failed to meet his burden to show that he was entitled to the extraordinary relief. Judgment is affirmed. 16-3699 Baranski v. U.S., appealed from the Eastern District of Missouri, Loken, J.   Wire Fraud Intent; Restitution   Where a defendant, who was a former CEO and bank board chairman, was convicted of charges including conspiracy to commit wire fraud and falsifying bank entries, the judgment is affirmed because the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the defendant possessed the knowledge and intent required for the convictions, the governments disclosures were sufficient to enable the defendant to understand the charges against him and to prepare a defense, relevant reports were properly admitted as business records, and the defendant did not show that jury instructions were an abuse of discretion. Judgment is affirmed. 16-160 U.S. v. Lundstrom, appealed from the District of Nebraska, Wollman, J.

Copyright © 2018 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.

COPYRIGHT 2018 BridgeTower Media Holding Company, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Minnesota Lawyer
Geographic Code:1U4MO
Date:Jan 25, 2018
Words:399
Previous Article:Court of Appeals Digest: Jan. 22.
Next Article:Fischbach likely wont pay out of pocket for suit.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters