The case involved a motion to suppress statements made by defendant Ivanna Red Bow after her arrest in connection with a stabbing on the Standing Rock Reservation. Red Bow was advised of her Miranda rights, signed a written waiver, and provided both verbal and written statements to BIA and FBI agents over the course of about an hour. During the interview an attorney contacted by a relative attempted to reach her but was not permitted to speak with her, and she was not informed of the call; Red Bow had not requested counsel and was unaware of the attorney's efforts. The court denied the motion to suppress, holding that under Moran v. Burbine the officers' actions regarding the attorney had no bearing on the validity of Red Bow's voluntary Miranda waiver because the events occurred outside her knowledge and did not affect her capacity to understand and relinquish her rights.
The case involved Benjamin Gasal, an employee of Grain Inspection, Inc., who was injured when he fell from a moving railcar while working without fall protection at an elevator owned by CHS, Inc. Gasal sued CHS, alleging liability for his injuries. The court granted CHS's motion for summary judgment, finding that Grain Inspection was an independent contractor and CHS did not retain control over the method, manner, or operative details of the work performed by Grain Inspection or its employees. As a result, CHS owed no duty to protect Gasal from the acts or omissions of the independent contractor, and no exceptions to the general rule of non-liability applied.
The case involved defendant Francis Merle Baker, Jr., who was indicted for aggravated sexual abuse of a child in violation of federal law and later entered a guilty plea under a formal plea agreement admitting to the conduct with the minor victim. Baker moved to withdraw his plea and for a new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 and 33, asserting actual innocence based on a later statement from the victim. The court denied both motions, finding that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis from Baker's admissions during the change-of-plea hearing, that the victim's statement did not sufficiently undermine those admissions, and that Rule 33 does not apply to cases resolved by guilty plea without a trial.
The case involved defendant Richard Chandler Black Cloud, who was charged with sexual abuse of a minor and moved to suppress statements he made to FBI agents during a January 2011 interview, arguing that he was in custody and should have received Miranda warnings. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to suppress. The core reasoning was that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Black Cloud's position would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave, because the questioning occurred in a private office at a homeless shelter where he lived, the agents were not in uniform, he was not restrained or prevented from leaving, he was told he was not under arrest, the interview was short and respectful, and he was not arrested afterward.
The case involved the sentencing of Christian Robert Webb, who pled guilty to one count of receipt of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The court reviewed undisputed facts from the presentence investigation report showing Webb, a public school teacher and IT administrator, possessed extensive child pornography including images and live webcam videos of prepubescent children, some depicting his own nine-year-old daughter. Applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the court started with a base offense level of 22, added specific offense characteristics for a total adjusted level of 32, and after a downward departure under § 5K1.1 imposed a sentence of 144 months imprisonment plus lifetime supervised release and sex offender registration. The core reasoning was that this sentence, within the 121-151 month advisory range and below the 20-year statutory maximum, was sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the ends of justice given the facts.
The case involved North Dakota landowners suing an energy company in state court for a declaratory judgment that a 2007 pipeline easement across their property was either void under state law or limited to a single pipeline already built, after the company claimed rights under the easement to construct an additional line. The defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 threshold. The court granted the motion for remand, holding that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the disputed easement met the jurisdictional amount, as the suit concerned only the existing easement rather than the cost of any new one or potential alternative pipelines. Evidence of compensation amounts from related easements fell short, and all doubts were resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction.
propertyprocedure
Affiliations
District Court, D. North Dakota — appointed by George W. Bush