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.
141279P.pdf   07/23/2015  Chris Schaffhauser  v.  United Parcel Service, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1279
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Plaintiff failed to produce any 
   direct evidence that he was demoted based on race discrimination; applying 
   the McDonnell Douglas analysis, assuming plaintiff made a prima facie 
   case, UPS established a legitimate, non-discriminatory ground for the 
   demotion (violation of UPS's Professional Conduct and Anti-Harassment 
   Policy), which plaintiff failed to show was a pretext for race 
   discrimination; assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case of 
   discrimination based on his disability, he failed to show he ever 
   requested a formal accommodation or that UPS was aware of his medical 
   condition before the misconduct which served as the basis for his 
142537P.pdf   07/23/2015  Illinois Lumber and Material  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2537
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Federal Tax. In an action seeking a refund of alleged capital 
   gains tax overpayment,the refund claim was time-barred, and the case is 
   reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of 
142585P.pdf   07/23/2015  United States  v.  James White, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2585
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court erred in granting 
   defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal based on its conclusion 
   that no reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that 
   defendant intentionally assaulted his ten-month old son during a 
   ten-minute period when they alone; the circumstantial evidence, including 
   defendant's behavior after the incident, and the medical testimony were 
   sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the infant suffered a 
   non-accidental acceleration-deceleration injury in the ten-minute period 
   he was alone with the defendant. 
143570P.pdf   07/23/2015  United States  v.  Lamar Bertucci
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3570
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. In a prosecution for killing a bald eagle and 
   a rough-legged hawk, the court erred in setting market values for the 
   birds as the valuations provided by the government's witness did not 
   constitute sufficiently reliable evidence to justify new and dramatically 
   increased eagle and hawk values; the sentencing record indicated that the 
   $6,500 "financial obligation" the court imposed was not a fine but 
   restitution, which the court lacked authority to order in the context of 
   the specific charges in the case; on remand the court may consider whether 
   to order restitution as a condition of defendant's supervised release; the 
   presentence report failed to establish a factual or evidentiary basis for 
   a special condition of supervision requiring defendant to undergo 
   anger-management counseling and the condition is vacated as it does not 
   address concerns of crime deterrence, public safety or defendant's 
   correctional needs. 
143625U.pdf   07/23/2015  Peter  Ngobya  v.  Loretta E. Lynch
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3625
   Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Smith and Benton, Circuit 
   Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's 
   finding that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a 
   well-founded fear of future persecution due to a protected ground, and the 
   petition for review is denied without further comment.