Rodriguez-Quiroz v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2016): Successfully represented a native of Mexico before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a challenge of his removability. Rodriguez had been litigating for seven years to prove that he previously entered the country in 2004 with a valid visa and has never left the U.S. nor reentered illegally. The Eighth Circuit held that the lower immigration courts had clearly erred in finding our client had left the country because he had rebutted a presumption of reliability attached to a government printout with evidence showing he was present in the U.S. on the alleged date of departure. The Court held further that Rodriguez had been denied opportunities to prove he never reentered illegally, concluding that it would be fundamentally unfair for the courts to rely solely on an immigration form with inconsistencies. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case solely to allow the client to present additional evidence, but has retained jurisdiction, stating that Rodriguez had already presented substantial evidence that he remained in the U.S. throughout 2005, and questioning whether any reasonable adjudicator could conclude he did not meet his burden.
United States v. Meadows, 637 Fed. Appx. 255 (8th Cir. 2016): Successfully represented a federal criminal defendant before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a challenge of his sentence. Ms. Lodin Peralta was appointed by the Court to represent the defendant pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. The trial court judge had improperly imposed a sentence greater than the statutory maximum. The Court remanded the matter back to the district court for resentencing.
John Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. et al., 844 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. 2014): The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and district court in favor of my client, vacating a damages award of $220,000. In doing so, the supreme court officially recognized the business tort of interference with prospective economic advantage, and for the first time set forth the elements for that cause of action. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
United States v. Cullen, 432 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006): The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing of my client because the district court committed procedural error by applying sentencing guidelines as mandatory, and the error was not harmless. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
State v. Weaver, 733 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. App. 2007): The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the second-degree murder conviction of my client and remanded for a new trial. The trial court had erred in allowing the medical examiner to testify about material lab results when the lab technician’s identity was unknown, and he or she was unable to be cross-examined. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610 (Minn. 2005), affirming State v. Jacobson, 681 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. App. 2004): The Minnesota Supreme Court and the court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision denying my client’s motion seeking to admit evidence relating to his mental state based on good faith misunderstanding of the law. My client had relied on advice of his personal counsel and on a letter of a chief deputy prosecutor stating similar acts were legally permissible. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)