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.
151930P.pdf   07/21/2016  Farrell Cherry  v.  Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-1930
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City    
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. The record did not show a genuine 
   issue of material fact as to defendant's liability under a cat's paw 
   theory, and the district court did not err by proceeding to the McDonnell 
   Douglas analysis; under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the district court 
   did not err in finding defendant had articulated a legitimate, 
   non-discriminatory ground for plaintiff's discharge - a company-wide 
   reduction in force - which plaintiff failed to show was a pretext for 
   discrimination. 
  
152765U.pdf   07/21/2016  United States  v.  Johnnie Long
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2765
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton and 
   Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court considered all of the 
   relevant section 3553(a) factors when it determined defendant's sentence, 
   addressed his arguments and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. 
  
152793U.pdf   07/21/2016  United States  v.  Fernando Salgado
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2793
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bright and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed after defendant assaulted a 
   fellow inmate was not substantively unreasonable. Judge Gruender, 
   concurring. 
  
153673U.pdf   07/21/2016  Mark Parker  v.  Thurston County, Nebraska
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3673
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case - civil rights. The district court did not err in dismissing 
   the complaint as time-barred under Nebraska's four-year statute of 
   limitations. 
  
153806U.pdf   07/21/2016  United States  v.  Tony Bess
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3806
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Gruender and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. On appeal defendant challenges the district 
   court's armed-career-criminal determination. Missouri Revised Statute 
   Section 569.010(2) covers a broader range of conduct than generic burglary 
   and therefore does not qualify categorically as a violent felony; however, 
   defendant's burglary convictions may qualify as predicate offenses under 
   the modified categorical approach, and the case must be remanded for 
   further consideration under Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S.---, (U.S. 
   June 23, 2016)which holds that the modified categorical approach is 
   available when a statute lists alternative elements and thus defines 
   separate crimes; on remand, in resolving the issue of whether the 
   alternative phrases listed in the Missouri statute are elements or means, 
   the district court may hear any evidence it could have heard at the first 
   sentencing proceeding. 
  
161432P.pdf   07/21/2016  United States  v.  Emily Protsman
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1432
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Murphy, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal case. The district court did not err in finding 
   defendant had violated the provisions of her supervised release; the 
   district court weighed the practicalities of the situation and the 
   reliability of the evidence and did not err in admitting testimony from 
   the probation officer regarding an Arizona investigation of a fraudulent 
   money transfer to defendant's account; no error in admitting the 
   transferring bank's records under the Fed. R. Crim. P.32.1(b)(2)(C) 
   balancing test.