DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
113485P.pdf   01/09/2013  United States  v.  Tyvarus Lindsey
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3485
                          and No:  11-3513
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Person who greeted police had authority
   to consent to a search of the house and cell phone seized in the house was
   admissible; no error in admitting prior bad-acts evidence against
   defendant Lindsey as Lindsey had proper notice of the government's
   intent to use the evidence and the evidence was relevant to show intent
   and motive; potential prejudice from admission of the evidence was 
   limited by restrictions on the evidence and the court's limiting
   instruction; statements of deceased co-conspirator were properly
   admitted; evidence was sufficient to establish a drug conspiracy.
  
121364U.pdf   01/09/2013  Estella Caradine  v.  Fred's Stores of Tennessee
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1364
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Melloy and
   Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Torts. The district court erred in granting defendant's
   motion for summary judgment in this slip-and-fall case, as there were
   genuine issues of material fact concerning plaintiff's fall and defendant's
   knowledge of the presence of the liquid alleged to have caused the fall.
  
122189U.pdf   01/09/2013  KeOndra Chestang  v.  Varner Super Max
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2189
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Arnold and Smith,
   Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff's initial placement in
   administrative segregation and a behavior modification program did not
   implicate a liberty interest; however, his continued segregation for years
   did implicate a liberty interest, and plaintiff stated a due process claim;
   the district court erred in dismissing this due process claim, and the
   matter is remanded for further proceedings.