United States v. Floyd Wesley Shulze, 107 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Floyd Wesley Shulze, 107 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
55 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese; Kraft Foods Group, Inc.; US Foods, Inc.; Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity, Woods and Fuller, P.C.; Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts; Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity, Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy (sdd, 2026-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese; Kraft Foods Group, Inc.; US Foods, Inc.; Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity, Woods and Fuller, P.C.; Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts; Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity, Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy
D.S.D. · 2026 · confidence medium
Washington v. Sorrows, 107 F.3d 876, 876 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hollenhorst, No. 25-2168 (JWB/SGE), 2025 WL 1911601 , at *1-2 (D.
cited Cited "see" Loud Hawk v. Ecoffey
D.S.D. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Washington v. Sorrows, 107 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision); see also Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997) (collecting published appellate authority).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Michael Goodwin v. John Ross, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 487 ; see also Washington v. Sorrows, 107 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision) (applying the Heck doctrine to bar a Bivens action).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. Hollenhorst
D. Minnesota · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87; see also Washington v. Sorrows, 107 F.3d 876, 876 (8th Cir. 1997) (applying Heck to Bivens claims).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wolf Guts v. County
D.S.D. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although Congress may waive the United States’ sovereign immunity, id., “[a]bsent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, money awards cannot be imposed against the United States.” McBride v. Coleman, 955 F.2d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 1992). “[A] Bivens action cannot be prosecuted against the United States and its agencies because of sovereign immunity.” Buford, 160 F.3d at 1203 . ° Even if the individual defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of South Dakota, some of Wolf Guts’ claims for money damages would likely be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 4…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wolf Guts v. Mr. M County
D.S.D. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although Congress may waive the United States’ sovereign immunity, id., “[a]bsent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, money awards cannot be imposed against the United States.” McBride v. Coleman, 955 F.2d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 1992). “[A] Bivens action cannot be prosecuted against the United States and its agencies because of sovereign immunity.” Buford, 160 F.3d at 1203 . ° Even if the individual defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of South Dakota, some of Wolf Guts’ claims for money damages would likely be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 4…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wolf Guts v. M County
D.S.D. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although Congress may waive the United States’ sovereign immunity, id., “[a]bsent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, money awards cannot be imposed against the United States.” McBride v. Coleman, 955 F.2d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 1992). “[A] Bivens action cannot be prosecuted against the United States and its agencies because of sovereign immunity.” Buford, 160 F.3d at 1203 . ° Even if the individual defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of South Dakota, some of Wolf Guts’ claims for money damages would likely be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 4…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Uhde v. Reade
N.D. Iowa · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Washington v. Sorrows, 107 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished); Hilario v. Marianna, 561 F. App’x 821, 822 (11th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); Lora-Pena v. F.B.I., 529 F.3d 503, 505, n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (observing that § 1983 and Bivens claims brought by a federal prisoner could be Heck barred, although they were not in that case); Kaplan v. Miller, 653 F. App’x 87, 90 (3d Cir. 2016) (applying Heck to a federal prisoner raising § 1983 claims). 3 the denial of his motion for compassionate release, were judicial in nature and thus she is immune from suit.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Parks v. Queen
E.D. Mo. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Washington v. Sorrows, 107 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 1997) (applying Heck in the context of a federal prisoner).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Floyd Wesley Shulze
95-3356.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 6, 1997.
107 F.3d 876
Unpublished

107 F.3d 876

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Floyd Wesley SHULZE, Appellant.

No. 95-3356ND

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 1997.
Filed March 6, 1997.

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Floyd Wesley Shulze appeals his weapons-related convictions and guidelines sentence. Relying on United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), Shulze raises a Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of the interstate weapons charges. Because the provisions under which Shulze was charged contain an interstate commerce requirement, Shulze's argument is foreclosed by our recent opinions. See United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 215 (1996); United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1364 (1996). Shulze's contention that the district court improperly considered predicate felonies for which Shulze's civil rights had been restored is similarly foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284, 1289-91 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied sub nom., Shulze v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 932 (1996). We also reject Shulze's contention that the enhancement to his sentence for crimes committed while he was on bail violates double jeopardy. See United States v. Lincoln, 956 F.2d 1465, 1473 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d 12, 13-14 (8th Cir.1991). Finally, Shulze challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for bartering stolen weapons. Contrary to Shulze's view, there is overpowering evidence that Shulze bartered stolen weapons for cocaine. See United States v. Koskela, 86 F.3d 122, 126 (8th Cir.1996) (evidence against Shulze characterized as "overwhelming"). The court declines to consider the supplemental citations raised in Shulze's correspondence with his counsel. This matter is best presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We thus affirm Shulze's convictions and sentence.

2

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result and in the judgment in this case.