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.
153271P.pdf   08/16/2017  Planned Parenthood of AR, etc.  v.  Cindy Gillespie
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3271
                          and No:  16-4068
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. The Medicaid "free-choice-of-provider" 
   provision, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(23)(A), does not give the Jane Does or 
   the class of Medicaid beneficiaries an enforceable federal right that 
   supports a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; the district court 
   erred, therefore, in enjoining the Arkansas Department of Human Services 
   from terminating its Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood 
   of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma as the plaintiff do not have a likelihood 
   of success on the merits of their claims. Judge Shepherd, concurring. 
   Judge Melloy, dissenting. 
  
161370U.pdf   08/16/2017  Laurence Maravilla  v.  Jefferson B. Sessions, III
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1370
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner failed to establish that her 
   membership in any of her proposed social groups was at least one central 
   reason for the extortion she experienced and the future harm she fears; as 
   petitioner did not meet her burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily 
   could not satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal; there 
   was insufficient evidence to show the government would torture petitioner 
   and her child or acquiesce in any torture, and her CAT claim was properly 
   denied. 
  
162093P.pdf   08/16/2017  Olga Despotis Trust  v.  Cincinnati Insurance Company
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2093
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gritzner, Author, with Riley and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Insurance. The district court did not err in finding the 
   insurer had not waived enforcement of the appraisal provision of the 
   insurance contract in this dispute over the value of the insured property; 
   the appraisal provision is enforceable under Missouri law; the district 
   court did not err in determining that plaintiff's failure to take any 
   steps towards rebuilding the property was fatal to its breach of contract 
   claim; vexatious-refusal-to-pay claim was properly rejected where the 
   insurer paid the undisputed portion of the claim and invoked appraisal 
   under the provisions of the policy. 
  
162404P.pdf   08/16/2017  Ray Scott  v.  Tobias J. Tempelmeyer
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-2404
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants violated 
   plaintiff's First and Fourth Amendment rights by engaging in an inspection 
   and condemnation of his motel in retaliation for his disputing whether a 
   city lodging tax applied to his motel, the district court erred in denying 
   the city attorney's motion for summary judgment based on qualified 
   immunity with respect to plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim; 
   plaintiff did not have a clearly established right to be free from 
   regulatory enforcement that is otherwise supported by probable cause. 
  
163017U.pdf   08/16/2017  United States  v.  Thomas Davis, III
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3017
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in finding 
   that a four-day delay resulting from an identity hearing requested by 
   defendant was excluded from calculation for purposes of the Speedy Trial 
   Act; because the days were automatically excluded, the district court was 
   not required to make a separate ends-of- justice finding; the district 
   court did not err in finding defendant was competent to represent himself 
   and that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right 
   to counsel; the court emphasizes that the competence that is required of a 
   defendant seeking to waive the right to counsel is the competence to waive 
   the right, not the competence to represent himself, and defendant's 
   ignorance of certain rules and legal principles and his reference to 
   irrelevant issues or misguided arguments did not make him incompetent to 
   waive the right to counsel. 
  
163175P.pdf   08/16/2017  Brandon Keller  v.  Chad Pringle
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3175
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo    
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Keller's habeas petition was untimely. 
  
163847U.pdf   08/16/2017  United States  v.  Christopher Johnson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3847
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's appeal waiver is 
   valid and should be enforced as to his sentencing and indictment issues; 
   his challenge to the restitution order falls outside the scope of the 
   appeal waiver, but the the district court did not commit plain error in 
   its restitution order, so the claim fails on its merits; ineffective 
   assistance of counsel claim would not be considered on appeal.