for the Eighth Circuit

111875P.pdf   03/01/2013  Carlos Manuel Calles Quinteros  v.  Eric H. Holder, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-1875
                          and No:  11-3425
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges]
   Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner failed to show a well-
   founded fear of future persecution and the BIA's decision denying
   asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief is affirmed.
  
112054P.pdf   03/01/2013  Neal Roberts  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-2054
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - False Claims Act. The district court did not err in finding
   relators were entitled to a portion of the government's recovery under the
   False Claims Act, as the defective pricing claim the government brought
   was related to relators' suit; the court rejects the idea that Rule 9(b)'s
   heightened pleading requirement plays a part in determining whether a
   relator is entitled to share in settlement proceeds resulting from a qui tam
   action in which the government elects to intervene. Judge Colloton,
   dissenting.
  
122184U.pdf   03/01/2013  Richard Johnson  v.  Tyson Foods
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2184
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Arnold and Shepherd,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Employment Discrimination. District court did not err in
   finding plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to state an ADA claim.
  
122301U.pdf   03/01/2013  Ndidi Udogwu  v.  Eric H. Holder, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2301
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Smith and Colloton,
   Circuit Judges]
   Petition for Review - Immigration. Court lacks jurisdiction to review
   the BIA's determinations regarding the timeliness of petitioner's asylum
   application; substantial evidence supported the decision to deny
   withholding of removal.
  
122625P.pdf   03/01/2013  United States  v.  Jerilee Head
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2625
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Bright and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - Criminal Law. Defendant's conviction for being an accessory 
   after the fact is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter 
   a judgment of acquittal; the district court's instruction on the elements of 
   the offense violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury by 
   directing  the jury that Clark,  the person she was accused of assisting, had 
   committed an offense against the United States; the district court also 
   violated defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights when it 
   admitted the minute entry of Clark's guilty plea as conclusive proof that 
   Clark had committed the offense against the United States, because  a person 
   charged with being an accessory after the fact is entitled to be confronted 
   with the witnesses, and the principal crime cannot be proven by the 
   introduction of the judgment of conviction; it was reversible error to 
   deprive defendant of any opportunity to prove Clark did not commit the 
   predicate offense because he acted in self-defense; it was also error to 
   exclude proffered evidence tending to prove defendant knew Clark acted in 
   self-defense;  by successfully blocking evidence of what defendant knew on 
   the date she allegedly assisted Clark in evading apprehension, the government 
   failed to prove the second element of an accessory-after-the-fact offense 
   (that on that date, defendant had actual knowledge that Clark discharged a 
   firearm during the  commission of a crime of violence) and a judgment of 
   acquittal is required. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting in 
   part.  
  
123027U.pdf   03/01/2013  Rhonda Golden  v.  Dollar General Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-3027
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Smith and Colloton,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment.