8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 1, 2022

Listen to this article

Administrative Law

SSD Benefits

Disability Determination

Sufficiency of Evidence

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of plaintiff’s application for SSD benefits. Plaintiff voluntarily left work due to back problems and applied for SSDI. The SSA concluded that plaintiff was not disabled and denied his application. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the agency’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence.

Where the ALJ rejected plaintiff’s expert’s testimony as not supported by objective medical evidence, other evidence including plaintiff being advised to exercise and plaintiff’s own admission that he could perform daily activities supported the determination that plaintiff was not disabled.

Judgment is affirmed.

Bowers v. Kijakazi (MLW No. 78613/Case No. 22-1819 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Volpe, J. (Eugene Gregory Wallace, of Raleigh, NC for appellant; Stephanie Bartels Wallace, of Jonesboro, AR on brief) (Danielle Renee Jones, SSA, of Dallas, TX for appellee; Gabriel Bono, Special AUSA, SSA, of Dallas, TX on brief)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/211819P.pdf

Civil Practice

False Claims Act

Causal Requirement

Illegal Kickback

Where the government brought claims against a surgeon and his fiancée, who owned a medical implant distributorship, asserting violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the defendant submitted false Medicare and Medicaid claims after violating the anti-kickback statute, the wording of the statute creates a but-for causal requirement between an anti-kickback violation and the “items or services” included in the claim, and the district court did not instruct the jury on this, so the matter is remanded for a new trial.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

U.S. ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Medical LLC (MLW No. 78645/Case No. 20-2445 – 15 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Stras, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Fleissig, J. (James G. Martin, St. Louis, argued for appellant; Elizabeth C. Carver, James B. Martin, Sanford J. Boxerman, Drey A. Cooley and Deborah Seeger appeared on the briefs) (Daniel Winik, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee; Michael Raab and Charles W. Scarborough appeared on the briefs)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/202445P.pdf

Preliminary Injunction

Temporary Restraining Order

Jurisdiction

Where appellant challenged orders denying her motion to compel, her motion for a preliminary injunction and her motion for a temporary restraining order, the appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction for the denial of the motion to compel and the motion for a TRO, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying preliminary injunctive relief.

Appeal dismissed.

Laramore v. Quality Residence, LLC (MLW No. 78635/Case No. 22-1668 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221668U.pdf

Civil Rights

§  1983

Prison Inmate

Adverse Summary Judgment

Plaintiff, a state prison inmate, appealed from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in plaintiff’s §1983 action.

Where the court found no error with the district court’s summary judgment analysis, it affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Gomez v. South Dakota (MLW No. 78625/Case No. 22-1470 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Lange, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221470U.pdf

Paycheck Deductions

“Fair Share” Fees

Good-Faith Defense

Where Minnesota state employees sued unions seeking monetary relief based on the amount of fair share fees that had been deducted from their paychecks for the benefit of the unions, the public sector unions were entitled to a good-faith defense to liability if they relied on a then-valid statute to collect the funds, and two plaintiffs’ claims failed because the unions were private actors and were not acting under the color of state law, and the judgment is affirmed since the district court did not err in awarding certain litigation costs to the unions.

Judgment is affirmed.

Hoekman v. Buros (MLW No. 78627/Case No. 21-1366 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J. (Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Austin, Texas, argued for appellant) (Patrick Casey Pitts, San Francisco, and Ramya Ravindran, Washington, D.C., argued for appellees)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/211366P.pdf

Paycheck Deductions

“Fair Share” Fees

Good-Faith Defense

Where Minnesota state employees sued unions seeking monetary relief based on the amount of fair share fees that had been deducted from their paychecks for the benefit of the unions, the district court properly found that the unions were entitled to a good-faith defense to liability, and the dismissal of the claims is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Brown v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (MLW No. 78628/Case No. 21-1640 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J. (Jeffrey Michael Schwab, Chicago, argued for appellant) (Leon Dayan, Washington, D.C. and Scott A. Kronland, San Francisco, argued for appellees)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/211640P.pdf

Prison Inmate

Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need

Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiff, an inmate, appealed from the grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff had filed a §1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs.

Where corrections officer defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity in their official capacity and could also rely on the judgment of medical professionals, and where the evidence showed that the medical defendants acted within the applicable standard of care, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Tidwell v. Gibson (MLW No. 78620/Case No. 21-3457 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213457U.pdf

Contracts

Construction Project

Subcontractors’ Recovery

Surety Bond

Plaintiffs were subcontractors on a project. After getting into a dispute with the general contractor, plaintiffs obtained an arbitration award for their labor and materials along with legal fees and costs. The general contractor subsequently declared bankruptcy. Defendant, which issued the surety bond guaranteeing payment to plaintiffs, tendered only part of the arbitration award amount. Plaintiffs sued and the district court entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.

Where the surety entitled plaintiffs to sums “just due,” which included the legal costs they were awarded in arbitration, the district court erred in interpreting the surety to only cover plaintiffs’ labor and materials.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Owners Insurance Company v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (MLW No. 78623/Case Nos. 21-2943 & 21-2950 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Arnold, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. Ross, J. (Richard A. Stockenberg, of St. Louis, for appellant Owners Insurance Company; Steven M. Cockriel, of St. Louis, for appellant Stark Truss Company, Inc., Philip J. Christofferson, of St. Louis, on brief) (Carol Z. Smith, of Kansas City for appellee; Matthew W. Geary, of Kansas City, on brief)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212943P.pdf

Criminal Law

Child Pornography

Guilty Plea

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed after pleading guilty to a child pornography offense, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the district court did not overlook a relevant factor or give weight to an inappropriate or irrelevant factor and imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range, the court found defendant’s sentence substantively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. McKie (MLW No. 78621/Case No. 22-1008 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221008U.pdf

Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs

Possession of Firearm

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute CDS and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Defendant argued that his 176-month sentence for the conspiracy conviction was substantively unreasonable, contending that the district court afforded disproportionate weight to his criminal history.

Where the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence, it did not abuse its discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Kirchoff (MLW No. 78614/Case No. 21-2480 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212480U.pdf

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Motion to Suppress Evidence

Sentencing Enhancement

Defendant appealed from his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, two other evidentiary rulings, and the application of a sentencing enhancement.

Where officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the offense of indecent exposure, defendant was properly searched incident to arrest, and the admission of evidence concerning defendant’s indecent exposure offense and sex offender status was properly admitted to provide context to his firearm charge.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Richardson (MLW No. 78617/Case No. 21-2741 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Welte, J. (Brian Patrick Toay of Fargo, ND for appellant) (Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl, AUSA, of Fargo, ND for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212741P.pdf

Maintaining Premises for Controlled Substances

Sentencing Enhancement

Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed from the enhancement of his sentence for maintaining premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing controlled substances, arguing that the enhancement did not apply.

Where the evidence showed that defendant stored large quantities of drugs in his residence’s backyard and distributed the drugs from the house, the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement even though the property also served the legitimate purpose of being defendant’s residence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Sims (MLW No. 78622/Case No. 21-2230 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212230U.pdf

Motion to Suppress Evidence

Vehicle Inventory Search

Pretextual Search

Defendant appealed from his conviction on drug and firearms offenses, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was found during an inventory search of his vehicle. Defendant was arrested on outstanding warrants, leading police to impound and tow the vehicle after they declined to permit defendant to call someone to get the vehicle.

Where the vehicle was impounded pursuant to standard police department policy, it was not unlawful for police to impound and search the vehicle even though a willing driver may have been available to pick up the vehicle.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Blacksmith (MLW No. 78615/Case No. 21-2497 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Viken, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212497U.pdf

Revocation of Supervised Release

Within-Guidelines Sentence

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, the court found no error with defendant’s sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Repper (MLW No. 78626/Case No. 22-1606 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221606U.pdf

Revocation Sentence

Pro Se Brief

Where a defendant challenged a revocation sentence and his original criminal proceeding in a pro se brief, the sentence was not unreasonable, and the defendant could not use the revocation proceeding to challenge his original conviction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Pfaff (MLW No. 78636/Case No. 22-1746 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221746U.pdf

Sentencing

Armed Career Criminal

Predicate Offenses

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court properly found that the defendant was an armed career criminal for sentencing purposes because the predicate offenses were committed on different occasions.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Stowell (MLW No. 78629/Case No. 21-2234 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Holmes III, J. (James B. Pierce, Fort Smith, AR and Christopher Aaron Holt, Fayetteville, AR argued for appellant) (David A. Harris, Fort Smith, AR argued for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212234P.pdf

Sentencing

Enhancement

Possession Of Weapon

Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug conspiracy case, the district court did not err in applying an enhancement for possessing a weapon in connection with a drug trafficking offense because the government proved by the preponderance of the evidence that at least one of the guns was in spatial and temporal connection with the drug dealing activity.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Davison (MLW No. 78631/Case No. 21-3016 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213016U.pdf

Sentencing

Enhancement

Wildlife Trafficking

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to wildlife trafficking, the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement since the defendant had committed a pattern of violations similar to the Lacey Act violation.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Stimac (MLW No. 78630/Case No. 21-2412 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J. (Brian N. Toder, Minneapolis, argued for appellant) (Emily Anne Polachek, Minneapolis, argued for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212412P.pdf

Sentencing

Lay Opinion Testimony

Guidelines Cross Reference

Where a defendant challenged his conviction and sentence after being convicted of being a felon in possession of ammunition, the defendant did not preserve his objection to testimony from a police detective about muzzle flash evidence on a surveillance video, but even if the issue was preserved, the admission of the evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the district court did not err in calculating the base offense level or in applying a cross reference to the guidelines for assault with intent to commit murder or attempted murder rather than the cross reference for aggravated assault, and the judgment is affirmed since there was no error in making the sentence consecutive to the state court sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Williams (MLW No. 78647/Case No. 21-3122 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J. (Frank Steinbach III, West Des Moines, IA argued for appellant) (Adam Kerndt, Des Moines, IA argued for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213122P.pdf

Sentencing

Substantive Reasonableness

Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense, the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Cole (MLW No. 89634/Case No. 22-1456 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221456U.pdf

Sentencing

Supervised Release

Jury Determination

Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after the revocation of his supervised release, arguing that there was a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine whether he violated a term of supervised release, the argument was foreclosed by precedent.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Agnew (MLW No. 78632/Case No. 21-3217 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213217U.pdf

Supervised Release

Polygraph Requirement

Use of Computerized Voice Stress Analyzers

Defendant was placed on supervised release following his conviction for enticing a minor. As a condition of his sex offender treatment on supervised release, defendant was obligated to undergo polygraph examination. Physicians would not grant a medical release for the polygraph due to defendant’s prior bypass surgery, so the district court ordered a computerized voice stress analyzer exam in lieu of a polygraph. Defendant challenged this substitution, citing alleged inaccuracy of CVSA.

Where CVSA would further the sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and deterrence by incentivizing defendant’s candor during examination, the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the conditions of defendant’s supervised release.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Herbst (MLW No. 78618/Case No. 21-2768 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212768U.pdf

Supervised Release

Special Condition

Contact With Minors

Where a defendant challenged the imposition of a special condition of supervised release that prohibited him from contact with minors without the prior written consent of the probation office, the district court conducted the necessary individualized assessment before imposing the special condition, and the condition was related to the prior offense and recent conduct, so the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Stelmacher (MLW No. 78633/Case No. 21-3782 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213782U.pdf

Transportation of a Minor

Rejection of Plea Agreement

Court’s Participation in Plea Negotiations

Defendant appealed from his sentence of life without parole, imposed following his guilty plea to transportation of a minor. The district court rejected the parties’ initial plea agreement, leading to the parties reaching a second nonbinding agreement recommending a sentence within the Guidelines range.  Defendant argued that the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations in violation of rules of criminal procedure.

Although the district court committed plain error by stating that it would sentence within the Guidelines range, defendant was not entitled to relief where defendant acknowledged during the second plea hearing that the district court could impose a LWOP sentence and defendant could not show that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s statements.

Gruender, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: “I agree with the court that Schneider cannot establish that the alleged Rule 11(c)(1) error by the district court affected his substantial rights. However, as the court did in United States v. Thompson, I would “[a]ssum[e] for the sake of analysis” that there was a plain error.”

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Schneider (MLW No. 78612/Case No. 22-1112 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Traynor, J. (Drew J. Hushka, of Fargo, ND for appellant; Luke Thomas Heck, of Fargo, ND, and Jesse H. Walstad, of Fargo, ND on brief) (Gary Lee Delorme, AUSA, of Bismarck, ND for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/221112P.pdf

Education Law

IDEA

School Placement

IEP

Where a parent appealed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to a school district on a dispute over the appropriate school placement for her son pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the student’s individualized education plan was reasonably calculated to enable him to make progress appropriate to his circumstances, and the court did not err in affirming the Administrative Hearing Commission’s decision affirming the IEP.

Judgment is affirmed.

J.P. v. Belton School District No. 124 (MLW No. 78646/Case No. 21-3048 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Laughrey, J. (Will Hack, St. Louis, argued for appellant brief; Lisa Michelle Sutherland and Joy Victoria Fears appeared on the brief) (Joshua Elliot Douglass, St. Louis, argued for appellee; Patrick J. Brazill appeared on the brief)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213048P.pdf

Employer-Employee

Wrongful Termination

Jury Duty

Rationale for Termination

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination suit, alleging that he was fired due to his participation in jury duty.

Where the evidence showed that defendant terminated plaintiff, an at-will employee, for not going to a job site as directed and defendant continuously cited this rationale throughout the litigation, the district court properly found that plaintiff could not make out a claim for wrongful termination.

Judgment is affirmed.

Foster v. Rick Shipman Construction Inc. (MLW No. 78624/Case No. 21-3915 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213915U.pdf

Immigration Law

Asylum

Denial of Withholding of Removal

Cognizable Social Group

Petitioners appealed from the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioners claimed that they had been subjected to past persecution and had a fear of future persecution from gangs based on their membership in the social group of landowning cattle ranchers.

Where petitioners had failed to sufficiently demonstrate that they had a cognizable social group and admitted that the gangs targeted anyone believed to have money, petitioners could not demonstrate a sufficient nexus to warrant asylum.

Petition is denied.

Alvarenga-Santos v. Garland (MLW No. 78616/Case No. 21-2655 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212655U.pdf

Asylum

Removal

Social Group

Where a family of three from Guatemala sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, there was no error in the determination that the petitioners did not demonstrate the requisite nexus between their fear of persecution and membership in a proposed particular social group, and the petition is denied.

Petition denied.

Osorio v. Garland (MLW No. 78648/Case No. 21-3555 – 3 page) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/213555U.pdf

Insurance

Business Loss Coverage

COVID-19 Pandemic

Denial of Claim

Plaintiffs sought business loss coverage after they were required to suspend or limit operations at their dental clinics due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After defendant denied their insurance claim, plaintiffs filed suit. The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

Where plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege that the COVID-19 virus damaged their facilities or that removal of the virus was required, they had not pled the requisite loss to trigger coverage under the policy issued by defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

Rock Dental Arkansas PLLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Company (MLW No. 78619/Case No. 21-2919 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J. (James Allen Carney, of Little Rock, AR, Randall Keith Pulliam, of Little Rock, AR, Jake G. Windley of Little Rock, AR for appellant) (Scott Michael Strauss, of Little Rock, AR, Daniel G. Litchfield, of Chicago, IL, Laurence James William Tooth, of Chicago, IL, Alan I. Becker, of Chicago, IL, Ericka C. Hammett of Milwaukee, WI for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212919P.pdf