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.