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.
151415P.pdf 04/25/2016 Cynthia Wilson v. Jayne Miller U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1415 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Smith, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants retaliated against plaintiff, their employee, for her public comments in a newspaper article and at an open meeting for employees by giving her a negative performance rating, ratings that have a negative impact on promotion potential do not constitute an adverse employment action unless the rating actually led to the denial of a promotion, and the evidence here did not support a conclusion that plaintiff would have been selected absent the comments in her performance review; further, plaintiff had not presented evidence that the review was actually used in the selection process and no reasonable jury could draw an inference that the employer did not promote plaintiff because of comments in her performance evaluation; similarly, there was no evidence that plaintiff's protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in other claimed adverse actions - denial of a promotion and disciplinary actions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's pendent state law claims. Judge Smith, dissenting. 151824U.pdf 04/25/2016 United States v. James Craig, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1824 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Prior incident involving the use of alcohol showed a ban on alcohol use was needed to prevent any interference with defendant's completion of post-sentencing treatment, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by adding the ban as a special condition; the district court performed the required individualized assessment before imposing restrictions on possession of pornography and sexually explicit materials, and the condition was not an abuse of the court's discretion; no error in imposing a condition prohibiting defendant from associating with known sex offenders without the approval of the probation office as this condition merely modified the general condition prohibiting association with felons and was reasonably related to his offense; ban on possession of photographic devices was reasonably related to defendant's history and characteristics, as well as his offense. 152669U.pdf 04/25/2016 United States v. DeJuan Thornton U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2669 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Appellate Procedure. Defendant's appeal from an order committing him to treatment under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4245 was untimely, and the appeal is dismissed. 153020P.pdf 04/25/2016 United States v. Aaron Webster U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3020 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bright and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion remanding the matter for resentencing without consideration of certain disputed facts, see United States v. Webster, 788 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2015). Anders case. Unchallenged facts in the presentence report supported the imposition of an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use of the weapon in connection with another felony offense; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Judge Bright, dissenting. 161002U.pdf 04/25/2016 United States v. Robert Allen U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1002 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.