United States Eighth Circuit

District court erred in imposing probation conditions which related to third party's operation of a refinery formerly owned by defendant, thereby making probation contingent on future acts or omissions of a third party. Appellate court may excise objectionable conditions when they are a minor part of the conditions of probation and not integral to the district court's judgment.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/28/2004
• Published 01/28/2004

Judges

• MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge., Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was James L. Volling, Minneapolis, MN. Additional attorneys appearing on the brief were Deborah A. Ellingboe and Martin S. Fallon.


• For Appellees:
  
• Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was James E. Lackner, Minneapolis, MN. Additional attorney appearing on the brief was William H. Koch.