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.
151672P.pdf 08/18/2016 United States v. E.T.H., JUV U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1672 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The statute governing the maximum term of supervision upon revocation for a person under the age of 21 [18 U.S.C. Sec. 5037(d)]is indisputably ambiguous, but court holds that the maximum term of supervision that a court may impose under Section 5037(d)(6) is determined by the requirements in Section 5037(d)(2), using the juvenile's age at the time of the revocation hearing; the maximum total time of detention and supervision that may be imposed upon the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervision for a juvenile who is under age 21 at the time of revocation is ((1) 3 years, (2) the top of the guidelines range that would have applied to a similarly situated adult unless the court finds an aggravating factor warranting an upward departure or (3) the maximum term of imprisonment that would be authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an adult, whichever is the least, less the term of official detention ordered; here, the court's sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and the matter is remanded for resentencing. 151690P.pdf 08/18/2016 United States v. William Gauld U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1690 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court correctly applied this court's decision in U.S. v. Woodward, 694 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2012) in holding defendant's juvenile adjudication counted as a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(b)(1); the district court's special condition of supervision banning defendant's use of internet-connected computing devices was not plain error in light of the circumstances of the offense. Judge Kelly, dissenting on the use of defendant's juvenile adjudication. 151796P.pdf 08/18/2016 Curtis Johnson v. AGRI U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1796 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Gruender, Circuit Judge, and Ericksen, District Judge] Civil case - Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In action alleging the USDA discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race in administering its loan programs, plaintiff's claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act were not precluded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' final decision on his complaint as the USDA's procedures under 7 C.F.R. Pt. 15d are too barebones to bar future federal court litigation; plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to state a claim against agency employees who met the relevant definition of creditor; two employees of the USDA's National Appeals Division did not meet the definition and they were properly dismissed; plaintiff's conspiracy claims were properly dismissed under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine; when a remedial scheme is entirely created by regulation, it does not preclude a Bivens claim, and the court erred in dismissing this claim. Reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. 151919P.pdf 08/18/2016 W.T. Davis v. Cutter Morning Star School U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1919 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Bright and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - School Desegregation. The district court did not err in denying the school districts' Rule 60(b)(5) motion to terminate the Garland County School Desegregation Case Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and the court's 1992 order enforcing the Agreement in light of the repeal of the Arkansas School Choice Act of 1989 and its replacement by the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013. 152610P.pdf 08/18/2016 Steven Nelson v. James Nelson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2610 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Civil case - RICO. In action against plaintiff's brother and his accountant and banker alleging they had siphoned money from the brothers' farming business, the district court did not err in dismissing the action as plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an enterprise whose affairs were supposedly conducted in an illicit manner. 152772U.pdf 08/18/2016 United States v. David Phinney U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2772 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges, and Ericksen, District Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable and the sentencing record demonstrated that the court had a reasoned basis for its sentencing decision. 153617U.pdf 08/18/2016 Carmen Rivas-Alvarez v. Loretta E. Lynch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3617 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum relief, and the petition for review is denied without comment. 153869U.pdf 08/18/2016 Santos Zacarias-Castro v. Loretta E. Lynch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3869 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the agency decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the petition for review is denied without comment. 161466U.pdf 08/18/2016 United States v. Kevin Green U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1466 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Circuit precedent does not clearly establish that an erroneous recitation of the Section 3552(a)(2)(A) sentencing factors in the context of a revocation of supervised release is procedural error,and the defendant's argument that the court improperly relied on a sentencing factor that is listed in Section 3553(a)(2)(a) but not in Section 3583(e) is rejected; additionally, the court relied on the nature and circumstances of the offense in imposing the sentence requested by defendant's counsel and its decision was not plain error; defendant's pro se arguments concerning the court's fact findings and the reasonableness of the sentence rejected.