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.
161472P.pdf   06/19/2017  United States  v.  William Council
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1472
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Police officers had probable cause to arrest 
   defendant based on reports and their own observations; defendant came to 
   the door of his residence voluntarily and was in a public place when the 
   officers attempted to arrest him; defendant could not thwart an otherwise 
   proper arrest by retreating into the home after an officer had seized his 
   arm; the officers, who believed defendant was in possession of a sawed-off 
   shotgun had a legitimate concern for their safety, and their warrantless 
   entry into the home was supported by exigent circumstances; officers could 
   obtain a warrant to seize the shotgun which was in plain view when the 
   entered the home. 
  
162648P.pdf   06/19/2017  James Aulick  v.  Skybridge Americas, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2648
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Employer's comment that a "New 
   Face" was needed in the position plaintiff had applied for was facially 
   and contextually neutral and was not direct evidence of age 
   discrimination; assuming plaintiff has made a prima facie case of age 
   discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the employer 
   articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring 
   decision, and plaintiff failed to show these reasons were a pretext for 
   discrimination; plaintiff failed to show that defendant made an actionable 
   negligent misrepresentation concerning his hiring for the position; while 
   his supervisors encouraged him to apply and told him he had a good chance 
   at getting the position, they never told him to stop his job search and 
   never promised him the position; even if the employer made a false 
   misrepresentation, plaintiff could not justifiably rely on it as he was an 
   at-will employee and never received a job offer from any other employer. 
  
163661U.pdf   06/19/2017  United States  v.  Don Schroers
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3661
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges, and 
   Nelson, District Judge] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's decision to deny a 
   downward departure is unreviewable in the absence of an unconstitutional 
   motive or a mistaken belief it lacks authority to grant the departure, 
   neither of which is present here; the district court did not err in 
   calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range, which exceeded the 
   statutory maximum, and the court did not err in sentencing defendant to 
   the statutory maximum. 
  
171090U.pdf   06/19/2017  Arizona Hall  v.  Josh Hawley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1090
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Riley, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not discuss whether the 
   claims in Hall's amended habeas petition - which the court found was 
   untimely - related back to those raised in his first filing, which appears 
   to have been timely, and the matter is remanded to permit the court to 
   address this issue.