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.
113284P.pdf   11/15/2012  Ansu Abraham  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3284
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - habeas. In appeal of the denial of a Section 2255
   petition alleging counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Abraham of
   the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, the court need not
   decide whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010) applies
   retroactively on collateral review because, even if it does, Abraham
   cannot satisfy Strickland's prejudice prong because the PSR indicated a
   likelihood that he would be deported if convicted and he confirmed that
   he had read the PSR, had discussed it with his attorney and understood it.
  
121241U.pdf   11/15/2012  United States  v.  Demetrius Darnell Thomas
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-1241
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not commit any
   procedural error in sentencing defendant as the record showed the court
   properly considered all of the 3553(a) factors in the context of
   defendant's case and adequately explained, in light of those factors, why
   it was selecting 145 months as the starting point for its departure analysis;
   sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
  
122989U.pdf   11/15/2012  Carl Turner  v.  Ray Hobbs
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2989
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. District court erred in finding that
   one of plaintiff's previous cases counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
   1915(g) as the dismissal in that a case was for lack of administrative
   exhaustion; district court's order denying plaintiff IFP status and
   dismissing his case without prejudice is reversed, and the case is
   remanded for further proceedings.