for the Eighth Circuit

161753P.pdf   04/24/2017  United States  v.  Joel Mayokok
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1753
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Ebinger, 
   District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court erred in applying an 
   enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) as the sentencing record 
   does not support the conclusion that defendant actually engaged in file 
   sharing after he uploaded an image to Google Picasa; applying the 
   categorical approach, it is clear from looking at defendant's 2003 
   conviction for possession of a pornographic work involving minors in 
   violation of Minnesota Statute Section 617.247, subd. 4 that the 
   conviction necessarily relates to the possession of child pornography 
   under federal law, and the district court did not err in applying the 
   15-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. Section 2252(b)(1); 
   remanded for resentencing without the Sec. 2G2.b(3)(B) enhancement. 
  
161829U.pdf   04/24/2017  United States  v.  Marc Allen Cossette
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1829
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Beam and Murphy, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its 
   discretion in denying defendant's motion for a Section 3582(c)(2) 
   reduction where the court calculated the extent of a potential reduction 
   and then determined a reduction was inappropriate in light of defendant's 
   violent criminal history, his adjustment and behavior in prison, and the 
   danger he posed to the community. 
  
162044P.pdf   04/24/2017  United States  v.  Dusty Peoples
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2044
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Once a hotel guest is justifiably 
   expelled,the guest is without standing to challenge a police officer's 
   entry into his hotel room; here, the officer's entry into defendant's room 
   was for the lawful purpose of effecting defendant's eviction, and evidence 
   observed during this initial entry was a valid basis for the subsequent 
   warrant. 
  
171825P.pdf   04/24/2017  Marcel Williams  v.  Wendy Kelley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1825
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [PUBLISHED] Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Loken, and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Death Penalty - Habeas. Motion for stay of execution is denied in appeal 
   from denial of Rule 60(b) relief, as Williams has not shown a significant 
   likelihood of success on the merits on his claims of ineffective 
   assistance at the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. 
  
171848P.pdf   04/24/2017  Marcel Williams  v.  Wendy Kelley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1848
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Loken, and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Death Penalty - Civil Rights. In an as-applied challenge to Arkansas 
   lethal-injection protocol, Williams argues his specific medical conditions 
   creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the execution method 
   will cause him severe pain and serious harm in violation of his Eighth 
   Amendment rights. He seeks a stay of execution. We agree with the district 
   court that Williams failed to offer evidence establishing a significant 
   likelihood of success on the merits, the stay of execution is denied. 
  
171849P.pdf   04/24/2017  Jack Jones, Jr.  v.  Wendy Kelley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1849
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Riley, Gruender, and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Death Penalty - Civil Rights. In an as-applied challenge to Arkansas 
   lethal-injection protocol, Jones argues his specific medical conditions 
   creates a risk that the protocol will affect him differently and will 
   cause him severe pain in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. He 
   seeks a stay of execution. The request for a stay is denied because of his 
   delay in bringing this challenge; the district court did not clearly error 
   in finding Jones failed to establish a significant possibility that he 
   could show a demonstrated risk of severe pain; and the district court did 
   not clearly err in finding Jones failed to establish there was a 
   significant possibility of identifying a feasible, readily implemented 
   alternative method of execution. The order of the district court is 
   affirmed and the stay of execution is denied.