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.
153909P.pdf   05/02/2017  Jim Sciaroni  v.  Target Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3909
                          and No:  15-3912
                          and No:  16-1203
                          and No:  16-1245
                          and No:  16-1408
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judges and Strand, District Judge] Civil Case - class certification. This court in In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 847 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2017), remanded for further consideration of the class certification and reversed the amount of the appeal bond, while retaining jurisdiction. Appellants moved to amend the opinion, relating to the arguments raised by the various parties. After filing his principal brief, Olson sought by means of a Rule 28(i) letter to adopt the arguments raised in Sciaroni's subsequently-file principal brief. Olson's motion to amend is granted. Invoking Rule 28(i) is permitted, allowing a party to adopt and join in issues raised in other parties' briefs, notwithstanding the word limitation or brief-filing deadlines. Judge Shepherd dissents. 161190P.pdf 05/02/2017 Jason Powell v. Roxann Ryan U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1190 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
[PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Auther, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - preliminary injunction - due process. Following this court's remand in Powell v. Noble, 798 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2015), for the district court to consider a due process claim relating to Powell's efforts to hold a sign on a pole at the Iowa State Fair, the district court's denied a broader preliminary injunction, concluding Powell was unlikely to succeed on the merit and failed to show irreparable harm. On appeal, Powell claims the unwritten Fair rules are too vague. Whatever level of precision is required where the only sanction is ejection, Powell is not likely to succeed on his due process claim; Powell had notice of the rules for prospective relief and the rules are clear. Powell is not likely to succeed in claim that rule impermissibly encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and has not shown authorities discriminated in favor of others similarly situated. Fact that rules are unwritten does not deprive Powell of fair notice prospectively. District court's determination that Powell failed to show he was likely to suffer irreparable injury is affirmed; enforcement is not likely to infringe on his right to freedom of speech. Judge Shepherd concurs. 161460P.pdf 05/02/2017 Matina Koester v. Young Men's Christian Assoc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1460 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Americans with Disabilities Act. YMCA's policy of requiring a child's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) before admitting a child to its summer camp program, whose purpose was to better accommodate children with disabilities, was not used to screen out applicants; thus Koester could not establish that the YMCA took adverse action against her child in violation of Title III of the ADA. The requested accommodation was to enroll her child without providing an IEP, and the YMCA offered to modify the policy as long as it obtained the necessary information, but Koester filed suit before any interactive process could be completed. Thus YMCA did not unreasonably fail to accommodate the child. 161502U.pdf 05/02/2017 United States v. Maurice Wilkins U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1502 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Smith, Chief Judge, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. After modification of the terms of his supervised release four times, and continued violations, the district court revoked supervised release and sentenced Wilkins to nine months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release or in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. The district court was well within its discretion in weighing the relevant factors and Wilkins has failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of his sentence. 161599P.pdf 05/02/2017 United States v. Fabian Taylor, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1599 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
[PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Smith, Chief Judge, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward by two criminal history points because criminal history category substantially under-represented the seriousness of Taylor's conduct and his likelihood of committing more crimes. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 163474U.pdf 05/02/2017 Robert Bonczek v. Bd. of Trustees Natl. Roofing U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3474 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Arnold, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - ERISA. Grant of summary judgment in action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act is affirmed, as the record supports that the challenged determination did not amount to an amendment to the pension plan or an abuse of discretion afforded to defendants under the plan. 163797U.pdf 05/02/2017 United States v. Eulogia Barberena U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3797 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Riley, Murphy, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Challenge to validity of guilty plea is not properly before the court because Barberena did not move to withdraw her guilty plea in the district court. Barberena's appeal waiver is enforced.