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.
161296P.pdf   05/04/2017  Zack Dyab  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1296
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. A dispute about restitution does not involve a 
   claim of a right to be released from custody, and a prisoner cannot 
   challenge the restitution portion of his sentence under Section 2255; 
   district court order amending the restitution portion of the judgment did 
   not result in a new sentence or judgment and Dyab could not file a 
   successive habeas without prior authorization from the court of appeals. 
  
161557P.pdf   05/04/2017  Raleigh Spizman  v.  BCBSM, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1557
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - ERISA. Plaintiffs' claim for round-the-clock in-home nursing 
   care fell within the plain meaning and common understanding of the 
   "private-duty nursing" exclusion in the plaintiffs' 2012 policy; the Plan 
   Administrator's decision that round-the-clock nursing was excluded from 
   the 2013 policy was not an unreasonable interpretation of the plan; with 
   respect to plaintiffs' claim that defendant's agents' representations 
   regarding coverage estopped defendant from denying the claim, plaintiffs 
   cannot use an estoppel theory to enlarge their benefits under a written 
   plan. 
  
166033P.pdf   05/04/2017  Carol Helming  v.  John Reed
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-6033
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Schermer, Author, with Saladino and Shodeen, Bankruptcy 
   Judges] 
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in 
   determining that monthly payments due to the Debtor under a single premium 
   annuity were not exempt under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 513.430.1(10)(e).