Decisions
This section of the Web Site contains opinions selected by individual Judges for posting and is not intended to constitute a complete set of opinions for the district or any Judge. The decisions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.


JudgeCan be sorted ascendingCase TypeCase NameDate Filed
Show details for Judge Linda R. ReadeJudge Linda R. Reade
Show details for Judge Mark W. BennettJudge Mark W. Bennett
Show details for Judge Paul A. ZossJudge Paul A. Zoss
Show details for Judge Jon Stuart ScolesJudge Jon Stuart Scoles
Show details for Judge Donald E. O'BrienJudge Donald E. O'Brien
Show details for Judge Edward J McManusJudge Edward J McManus
Hide details for Judge Leonard T. StrandJudge Leonard T. Strand
Show details for CivilCivil
Hide details for CriminalCriminal
-USA v. Walter Villatoro-Ventura Order denying Government’s motion to revoke release order and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that the risk a defendant will be involuntarily removed from the country by immigration officials if released pending trial does not equate to “a serious risk that such person will flee” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(f)(2)(A). As such, and because none of the other grounds in Section 3142(f) that permit the Government to seek pretrial detention apply, the defendant must be released from Marshal’s custody pending trial. The court further held that Section 3142(d) does not preclude immigration authorities from detaining defendant and removing him from the country while he awaits trial, although such actions could form the basis of a renewed motion to dismiss the indictment. 09/12/2018
-USA v. Harry --Sentencing opinion in which the court explained its policy disagreement with the actual and ice methamphetamine guidelines and concluded that the appropriate remedy is to calculate an alternative guidelines range based on the methamphetamine mixture guidelines. 06/06/2018
-United States of America v. Arlyn Johnson -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Court found defendant was not entitled to have the evidence weighed at this point in the criminal proceeding. Additionally Court found that due to Iowa's process for removing firearms disabilities, defendant was unable to show that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) was unconstitutional as applied to him. Court recommends defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. 01/19/2016
-USA v. Yorgensen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion for Franks hearing and motion to suppress. Court found the defendant made the required showing to be entitled to a Franks hearing. Court determined in the Franks hearing that the defendant was able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the affidavit in support of the warrant contained material omissions and a reckless disregard for the truth. As such, court found the evidence obtained as a direct and indirect result of the warrant needed to be suppressed. Additionally court found that if the district court finds the Franks hearing was unwarranted or the defendant failed to meet his burden during the Franks hearing that the defendant did not make an unequivocal request for counsel and as such, the statements made after he mentioned counsel do not warrant suppression. Court recommends the evidence obtained as a direct and indirect result of the warrant be suppressed. 10/02/2015
-USA v. Clark -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found the officer had probable cause to arrest Clark and therefore evidence obtained as a direct result of that arrest did not merit suppression.09/04/2015
-USA v. Federico Jimenez Hernandez -- Order denying defendant's motion for court ordered writ. Court found defendant has failed to cite any legal authority under which this court can grant relief. Court denied defendant's motion. 08/24/2015
-USA v. Lobsinger -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. Court found that the State had promised in the plea agreement that no federal criminal charges would be filed after defendant pled guilty. Court found the State prosecutor did not have express actual authority to bind the Government to that promise. Nor did the State prosecutor have implied actual authority to bind the Government to a promise made in the state plea agreement. Court recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied. 07/02/2015
-United States of America v. Simeon -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle after a free air dog sniff. Court found that the defendant's detention was not unreasonably prolonged. Court found there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a free air dog sniff of defendant's vehicle in the parking lot. Court found there was probable cause to search defendant's vehicle, before the free air dog sniff was conducted. However, Court also found that the narcotics-detector dog was reliable and certified and that his indication of narcotics on defendant's vehicle provided probable cause to search the vehicle. Court recommended defendant's motion to suppress evidence be denied. 04/07/2015
-US v. Martinez-Hernandez -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count One which charges Martinez-Hernandez with being an aggravated felon found after illegal re-entry in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). Court found that the two-day delay between the defendant's arrest and his initial appearance in front of a United States Magistrate Judge was not a violation of his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a). Court also found that had the two-day delay been a violation of Rule 5(a), dismissal of the charges would not be the proper remedy under United States v. Chavez. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be denied. 02/25/2015
-USA v. Dimmick -- Order on motion for release filed by defendant appearing on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Defendant requested that he be returned to state custody pending trial in order to participate in state parole proceedings. He argued that the release considerations set forth in the Bail Reform Act do not apply under these circumstances. The court denied the motion, holding that the Bail Reform Act applies and that the Government met its burden of proving that the defendant should be detained in federal custody while awaiting trial.01/30/2015
-USA v. Ingmar Hernandez - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count One, which alleges a conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. Court found that the allegations of the indictment, when accepted as true and read as a whole, describes a conspiracy that targeted the United States. Court also found that, when accepted as true and read as a whole, the indictment describes actions by defendant sufficient to charge him with conspiracy to defraud the United States.01/21/2015
-USA v. Baker -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss count 1, which alleges a conspiracy to defaud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. Court found that the allegations of the indictment, when accepted as true and read as a whole, describe a conspiracy that targeted the United States. Court recommended that the motion be denied.12/29/2014
-USA v. Hernandez-Morales -- Report and Recommendation on third-party petition for return of money pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853(n). Court found Rafael E. Chavez Lujan did not meet his burden of proof and was not entitled to the return of forfeited money. Court recommended the petition be denied.12/16/2014
-USA v. Rojas -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found that the defendant was lawfully stopped and arreted and that two search warrants were properly issued based on probable cause arising from legally-obtained evidence. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied.10/03/2014
-USA v. Mosley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of a duffel bag dropped by defendant in his own yard during flight from law enforcement. Court found that the defendant did not abandon the bag by leaving it within the curtilage of his own home. Court further found that the plain view/plain smell doctrine did not justify law enforcement's search of the bag without first obtaining a warrant. Court recommended that the motion to suprress be granted.09/26/2014
-USA v. Tome Rojas -- Order denying defendant's motion to compel discovery. Court found defendant had not established a need to learn the identity of a confidential informant in Texas who did not witness the alleged offenses in Iowa and did not provide information that led to the return of a federal indictment against defendant based on those alleged offenses. Nor did defendant demonstrate that information contained in a Texas investigative file might be helpful and material to his defense in Iowa. 08/12/2014
-USA v. Jose Orellana -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a post-Miranda interview. Court found that the defendant expressly waived his Miranda rights before making a statement and that the waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. 07/31/2014
-USA v. McCammon -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a post-Miranda interview and subsequent search of his residence. Court found that defendant's statements were not involuntary due to his impaired state or any alleged coercive police activity. Defendant also provided a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before making a statement. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. 01/23/2014
-USA v. Himes -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from impoundment and inventory of vehicle. Court found that decision to impound was not based on community caretaking function or standardized criteria and was therefore an unreasonable seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment. Court recommended that evidence found in vehicle be suppressed as well as subsequently-gathered evidence from defendant's residence and statements he made to officers while in custody.12/30/2013
-USA v. Montoya-Echeverria -- Order granting defendant's motion to strike portions of the indictment. Court found that 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) identifies the elements of the alleged offense (reentry of deported alien) and subsection (b)(2) describes circumstances relevant to sentencing. Court ordered that references to aggravated felon, subsection (b)(2) and defendant's alleged prior conviction be stricken as surplusage pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d).12/30/2013
-United States of America v. Delgado -- Order granting motion for pretrial detention. Court found the Government had the right to seek pretrial detention because defendant had been convicted of two or more offenses decribed in subparagraphs (A) through (C) as pvoided in 18 U.S.C. section 3142(f)(1)(D). Court found pretrial detention was warranted based on the weight of the evidence against the defendant and her history and characteristics.12/04/2013
-United States of America v. Dean -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss counts for lack of jurisdiction. Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over counts based on alleged violations of the Hobbs Act and that defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the Government's evidence prior to trial. Court recommended the motion be denied without prejudice to defendant's right to make a motion for acquittal pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29.12/03/2013
-USA v. Boykin -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to sever. Court granted part of motion requesting severance of defendant's trial from his codefendant's, but denied part of motion requesting severance of the four counts against defendant into two separate trials.10/15/2013
-USA v. Sandoval -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his house and from a post-Miranda interview. The court found the information supporting the search warrant was not stale, it was reaonable for the issuing judge to rely upon information from all informants and there was sufficient evidence to connect the defendant and his residence to information about "Nacho." Court also found that exclusion of the evidence was not appropriate under United States v. Leon and recommended defendant's motion be denied.09/03/2013
-USA v. Barragan -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his hotel room and from a post-Miranda interview. The court found that defendant gave voluntary consent to search his hotel room, the search did not exceed the scope of consent and the defendantprovided a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.08/27/2013
-USA v. Hansen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the placement of a GPS tracking device on defendant's vehicle. Court found that although the search warrant applications violated Iowa law because the applicant was not a "special state agent," the search did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the warrants were supported by probable cause. Court also found that exclusion of the evidence was not appropriate under United States v. Leon and recommended defendant's motion be denied. 06/19/2013
-USA v. Clayton -- Order denying pro se motion to proceed under a pseudonym and prohibit public disclosure of defendant's physical description. Court held that defendant's concern for anonymity was speculative and unsupported and did not fall within the limited scope of legitimate reaons for anonymity in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that under these circumstances, an oder prohibiting public disclosure of defendant's physical description would violate the First Amendment.06/14/2013
-USA v. Poole -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle after a traffic stop. The court found that the initial stop was lawful and the extension of the stop to bring a narcotics-detecting canine to the scene was supported by the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court also found that the canine was certified and reliable and that his indication of narcotics provided probable cause to search the vehicle.04/18/2013
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-US v. Mathison -- Order granting motion for severance of trial. Defendant raised a legitimate Bruton concern and the Government was unable to offer any concrete solutions to avoid a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights at a joint trial. In addition, the court identified a serious risk of a "spillover" effect if defendant was tried with codefendants based on the nature of the charges. The defendant therefore met his burden of demonstrating a joint trial would cause him to suffer real prejudice.12/13/2012
-USA v. Troy Fulkerson -- Order overruling defendant's relevancy objection to his criminal history and circumstances of arrest offered by the Government to be used in determining revocation of pretrial release. Court found that evidence of dangerousness did not have to relate to the charged offense and the requirements for revocation and detention under 18 U.S.C. section 3148(b) were met.11/21/2012
-USA v. Barber -- Order denying Dominic Barber's motion for severance of trial. Defendant failed to show his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses would be violated by anticipated statements from a co-defendant. Defendant also did not demonstrate such unique circumstances that the jury would not be able to compartmentalize the evidence against him or that appropriate jury instructions would not be able to prevent any prejudicial "spillover."11/02/2012
-Earl Foy, Jr. v. United States of America -- Order granting in part and denying in part petitioner's motion for psychological evaluation in a Section 2255 case. Petitioner has shown the necessary good cause to allow the requested discovery. However, the court does not have the authority to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move petitioner to a facility closer to Fort Dodge, Iowa, for purposes of the proposed evaluation. In addition, petitioner's request for advance authorization of payment for the expert's fee must be approved by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit because the proposed fee exceeds the cap set forth in the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A(e)(3).10/15/2012
-United States of America v. Ruben Olivares-Rodriguez -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis. Court recommended that the motion be denied and the petition re-filed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255. The defendant is procedurally barred from relief under a coram nobis petition because he is still "in custody" while under supervised release, but his petition may be construed as a section 2255 motion given the alleged errors and requested relief.10/02/2012
-USA v. Baisden -- Order granting government's motion for psychiatric examination of defendant. Defendant has pled guilty and has been evaluated by a mental health professional selected by the defense. The defense intends to rely on the professional's opinion as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes. The government seeks to compel defendant to undergo a second evaluation by an expert selected by the government in order to address and rebut the defense expert's opinion. Defendant correctly notes that this situation does not fall within Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2. However, the court finds that it has the inherent authority to compel the requested examination and that it is appropriate to do so under these circumstances.08/01/2012
-USA v. Stephenson -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement while a search warrant was executed at his home. Although the defendant was not Mirandized prior to being questioned, The circumstances show that he was not in custody. As such, the lack of a Miranda warning does not render the statements inadmissible.06/27/2012
Show details for Social Security CasesSocial Security Cases