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.
161233P.pdf 04/27/2017 United States v. Jason Sims U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1233 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Circuit Judge, and Schreier, District Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's Arkansas residential burglary convictions do not qualify as predicate offenses for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act as the statute categorically sweeps more broadly than generic burglary; reversed and remanded for resentencing. 161441P.pdf 04/27/2017 United States v. John Beyers U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1441 and No: 16-1443 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The mitigating factors defendant contends the district court ignored were a major focus of his sentencing hearing and the court expressly addressed the essence of the defendant's position at sentencing; the district court did nor abuse its discretion by making defendant's revocation sentence consecutive to the sentences for his new crimes. 161976U.pdf 04/27/2017 Brittany O. v. Bentonville School District U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1976 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The 90-day period for the aggrieved party to challenge the IDEA hearing officer's decision ended on February 23, 2014 and plaintiff's March 5, 2014 IDEA attorneys'-fees complaint was timely, even if the applicable limitations period was 90 days; the district court erred, therefore, in dismissing the attorneys' fees claim as untimely; on the merits, the district court did not err in finding the plaintiff parent lacked standing to seek prospective injunctive relief against the Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of Education. 163350U.pdf 04/27/2017 Ronald Smullin v. Brett Duncan U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3350 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Dismissal affirmed without comment. 164423U.pdf 04/27/2017 United States v. William Worrels U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-4423 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Riley, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentence. There was no procedural error in the calculation of defendant's revocation sentence and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. 171892P.pdf 04/27/2017 Kenneth Williams v. Wendy Kelley U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 17-1892 and No: 17-1893 and No: 17-1896 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Riley, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Death Penalty Appeal. Upon transfer by the district court of a motion for relief from judgment asserting juror misconduct and bias, and an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting ineligibility to be executed based on intellectual disability, as an application for successive motion under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2244(b), this court agrees these matters constitute a second or successive habeas application and authorization is denied. Even if it were not a second or successive habeas petition, William has not shown "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief from judgment. Williams's protective application to file a second or successive petition habeas petition is also denied. In Williams's appeal from the district court's transfer order, the application for a certificate of appealability is denied as moot. The motions for stay of execution are denied. Judge Kelly concurs in part and dissents in part. 176010P.pdf 04/27/2017 Zeljko Situm v. Douglass J. Coppess U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 17-6010 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [PUBLISHED] [Schermer, Author, with Federman and Shodeen, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The Panel could not, in the absence of a transcript of the bankruptcy court's oral findings and conclusions say whether it had erred, and the order is affirmed.