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.
153558P.pdf 04/26/2017 Mark Moore v. Mark Martin U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3558 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Arkansas Election Law. The district court did not err in determining that the March 1 filing deadline for independent candidates posed a burden "of some substance" on plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the state has a compelling interest in timely certifying independent candidates for inclusion on the general ballot; however the court erred in concluding there was no genuine dispute of material fact whether the March 1 deadline is narrowly drawn to serve that compelling interest; on this record, there exists a genuine factual dispute whether the verification of independent candidate would conflict with the processing of other signature petitions if the former May 1 deadline were used; remanded for further proceedings. Chief Judge Smith, dissenting. 162752P.pdf 04/26/2017 United States v. Jermaine Ford U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-2752 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport [PUBLISHED] [Rossiter, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release affirmed as it is substantively reasonable and reflected the district court's weighing of the 3553(a) factors, including the circumstances of the violation and defendant's risk to the community. 163053P.pdf 04/26/2017 United States v. Timothy Anderson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3053 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground that his prosecution for distributing heroin violated his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; defendant is being prosecuted for distributing heroin to others for non-religious use; the prosecution of defendant under the Controlled Substances Act furthers the compelling government interest in mitigating the risk that heroin will be diverted to recreational users; the government has chosen the least restrictive means necessary to further that interest; the district court did not err in refusing to permit defendant to present this defense to the jury. 163774U.pdf 04/26/2017 United States v. Hector Vega-Martinez U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3774 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No error in imposing an alcohol ban as part of the special conditions of defendant's supervised release.