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.
131468P.pdf   12/17/2014  Mike Townsend  v.  Bayer HealthCare
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-1468
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - False Claims Act. In action alleging Bayer fired plaintiff in 
   violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the False Claims Act, the 
   action was not barred by the 180-day limitations period contained in Ark. 
   Code Ann. Section 21-1-604; the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant 
   terminated plaintiff in retaliation for his report about a physician 
   selling "gray market" drugs and overbilling Medicaid and that the stated 
   reason for his discharge was a pretext; the protections of the 
   anti-retaliation provision apply to an employee without requiring proof 
   that the employer was acting in concert with the customer to defraud the 
   government or acting in concert with the customer to orchestrate the 
   retaliation; challenges to evidentiary rulings rejected; argument that 
   defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's refusal 
   to give its proposed jury instruction on attorney-client privilege 
   rejected; whether the statute mandates an employee's reinstatement or 
   leaves the matter to the district court's discretion, the district court 
   did not err in ordering plaintiff's reinstatement; district court did not 
   err in denying defendant's request to remit plaintiff's back pay award; 
   the jury's award of $568,000 for emotional distress was excessive as a 
   matter of law given the extent and duration of plaintiff's distress, and 
   plaintiff is given the option of accepting a remittitur of $300,000 or a 
   new trial on the issue. 
  
133460P.pdf   12/17/2014  Addones Spencer  v.  Anthony Haynes
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3460
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena    
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Circuit precedent precludes 
   conditions-of-confinment claims using the vehicle of a habeas petition; 
   however the district court should have liberally construed Spencer's pro 
   se habeas petition and given him the option to pursue the claim under 
   Bivens; remanded for further proceedings. 
  
141351U.pdf   12/17/2014  Tylitha Davis  v.  Carolyn Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1351
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence on the record as a 
   whole supports the ALJ's determination that claimant's substance abuse was 
   a contributing factor material to a determination of disability and that 
   she was not disabled. 
  
141530P.pdf   12/17/2014  United States  v.  Ramon Garcia
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1530
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam and 
   Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's drug quantity calculation 
   was supported by the record; no error in applying a two-level enhancement 
   under Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug or "stash" 
   house; no error in imposing a three-level enhancement under Guidelines 
   Sec. 3B1.1(b) for role in the offense; sentence was not substantively 
   unreasonable. 
  
141916U.pdf   12/17/2014  Christopher Deaton  v.  Arkansas Dept. of Correction
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1916
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. Dismissal of prisoner's RLUIPA 
   challenge to defendant's grooming policy affirmed without comment. Judge 
   Colloton, dissenting.