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.
143698P.pdf   06/20/2016  Automated Matching Systems  v.  U.S. Securities and Exchange
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3698
                          and No:  15-2448
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls    
   [PUBLISHED] Shepherd, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Petition for Review - Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
   Petitioner challenges an order of the Commission denying its application 
   for a limited volume exemption from registration as a national securities 
   exchange under Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the 
   district court's dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for lack of 
   jurisdiction; the Commission reasonably concluded that the Act does not 
   permit an exempt exchange to operate with the self-regulatory powers 
   petitioner proposed in its application; the district court did not err in 
   determining it did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner's claims 
   alleging procedural deficiencies in the Commission's work or petitioner's 
   claim for a declaratory judgment. 
  
151769U.pdf   06/20/2016  Ryan Koerdt  v.  Sheridan School District
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1769
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendants' summary judgment 
   affirmed without comment. 
  
152046P.pdf   06/20/2016  Jason Procknow  v.  Hugh Curry
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2046
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Shepherd and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In this excessive force case, the district 
   court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of certain of 
   defendant's prior convictions; admission of a prior murder conviction was 
   also properly admitted as substantive evidence relevant to the officers' 
   use of force in plaintiff's arrest; the district court did not err in 
   denying plaintiff's motion for a judgment of matter of law concerning the 
   officers' third application of a taser; given the evidence in the case, 
   this court could not say no reasonable juror could have concluded the 
   application of the taser was an objectively reasonable approach to 
   ensuring that plaintiff was incapacitated and incapable of harming the 
   officers. 
  
152123P.pdf   06/20/2016  Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers  v.  Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2123
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Environmental law. The district court did not err in granting 
   a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs prohibiting defendant, the sponsor 
   of a Red River diversion project,from continuing construction of a ring 
   levee around the communities of Oxbow, Hickson and Bakke, North Dakota; 
   the district court did not err in determining the ring levee was a 
   component of a larger diversion project the planning and approval of which 
   had not been completed; the court did not err in determining the dormant 
   Commerce Clause did not prevent application of the Minnesota Environmental 
   Protection Act as a portion of the larger project will take place inside 
   Minnesota's borders; the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
   waiving the requirement of a bond based on its characterization of the 
   suit as public interest environmental litigation. 
  
152581P.pdf   06/20/2016  Raphael Donnell  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2581
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Bowman, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Petitioner seeks leave to file a second or 
   successive habeas motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255(h) to challenge a 
   sentence that was imposed after the district court applied the 
   career-offender sentencing guideline, USSG Section 4B1.1, in calculating 
   petitioner's advisory sentencing range; as the basis for the motion, 
   petitioner cites Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct 2551 (2015) to argue 
   that the residual clause of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1(a)(2) is 
   unconstitutionally vague; the motion seeks to assert a new right that has 
   not been recognized by the Supreme Court or made retroactive on collateral 
   review; the motion urges the creation of a second new rule that would 
   apply Johnson and the constitutional vagueness doctrine to a provision of 
   the advisory guidelines; the court therefore concludes that the successive 
   motion should not be certified "to contain" a new rule made retroactive by 
   the Supreme Court as required by Sec. 2255(h)(2); the motion for 
   authorization to file a second or successive motion is denied. 
  
152667P.pdf   06/20/2016  Grand Juror Doe  v.  Robert McCulloch
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2667
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Constitutional law. In action by a grand juror in the Michael 
   Brown matter seeking a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes 
   restricting grand jurors from disclosing information were unconstitutional 
   as applied to her, the district court erred in dismissing the matter and 
   instructing plaintiff to pursue all of her claims in state court; the 
   district court properly abstained from the immediate exercise of federal 
   jurisdiction, but rather than dismissing the case, the court should have 
   retained jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings while the parties 
   litigate the state-law questions in Missouri state courts; when the state 
   law claims have been resolved, if plaintiff's First Amendment claim has 
   not become moot, plaintiff may return to federal court and pursue it. 
  
152828U.pdf   06/20/2016  Blondell Mitchell  v.  Rick Sanchez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2828
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Bowman and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - Lanham Act. The district court did not err in dismissing this 
   action as plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act and her 
   Iowa state law claims were time-barred by Iowa's two-year statute of 
   limitations. 
  
152930P.pdf   06/20/2016  Laquince Hogan  v.  Wendy Kelley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2930
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff    
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Even if the search of a Crown Royal bag was 
   outside the scope of the warrant in the matter, there was no reasonable 
   probability the contents of the bag would have been suppressed because the 
   inevitable-discovery exception would have rendered the contents 
   admissible; as a result,counsel's failure to move to suppress the search 
   as outside the scope of the warrant could not have prejudiced Hogan, and 
   the court properly denied his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 
  
153620U.pdf   06/20/2016  United States  v.  Emmanuel Suarez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3620
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Claim that guilty plea was not 
   knowing and voluntary rejected as it was not presented to the district 
   court in the first instance by the filing of a motion to withdraw the 
   plea.