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.
151869P.pdf 07/22/2016 John Cottrell v. Michael Duke U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-1869 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Shareholders' Actions. In action by shareholders of Wal-Mart against the directors and officers of the corporation accusing them of breaking state and federal law by permitting and covering-up bribery committed by Wal-Mart's Mexican subsidiary, the specific facts alleged in the complaint do not give rise to a reasonable inference that Wal-Mart's board of directors learned of the suspected bribery while the alleged bribery was being covered-up and an internal investigation quashed; the allegations did not, therefore, establish "with particularity" that the threat of personal liability rendered a majority of the Wal-Mart board incapable of fairly considering whether to pursue the corporate causes of action the shareholders seek to enforce in this case, as required by Rule 23.1 and Delaware's heightened pleading threshold for derivative suits; as a result, the plaintiffs could not bring this action, and the dismissal of the shareholders' suit is affirmed. 152114U.pdf 07/22/2016 Jovanna Snider-Carpenter v. City of Dixon, Missouri U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2114 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Snider-Carpenter v. City of Dixon, Mo, 504 F. App'x 527 (8th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment in favor of the City and its employees affirmed without comment. 152115P.pdf 07/22/2016 United States v. Thomas Schropp U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2115 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and Gritzner, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant's case was pending when amended criminal rules took effect, and under new Rule 12, his assertion of a double-jeopardy defense was untimely; his challenge can only be reviewed if he shows good cause, and his brief makes no attempt to show good cause and the issue will not be reviewed; while certain photos were improperly admitted because the government failed to show they accurately depicted the scene at the relevant time, the admission of the photos was harmless error; no error in denying defendant's motion for a new trial which was based on claims that two witnesses were not credible and that the court made an error, which it quickly corrected, in instructing the jury that a witness faced no mandatory minimum imprisonment due to his cooperation; evidence was sufficient to prove all counts in this arson and fraud prosecution. 152173P.pdf 07/22/2016 United States v. Alejandro Valencia U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-2173 and No: 15-2192 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Kelly, Circuit Judge, and Ericksen, District Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant Rangel-Ortega signed a valid appeal waiver, and his appeal is dismissed; because the court misstated the scope of defendant Valencia's appeal waiver at the change-of-plea hearing, the court would consider his challenge to his sentence; the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b) based on its finding defendant Valencia acted as a manager or supervisor. 153026P.pdf 07/22/2016 United States v. Chet West U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3026 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Loken and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive defendant of his ability to present a mistaken-belief defense in this tax fraud prosecution; Special Conditions #13 of defendant's supervised release which prevents him from creating any new websites and requires him to remove any existing websites is overly broad; Special Condition #14, which bans defendant from using or possessing computing devices without prior written approval and subjects him to searches of any computer he does own, is also overly broad; these two conditions are vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing. 153084P.pdf 07/22/2016 Vilma Arevalo-Cortez v. Loretta E. Lynch U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3084 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Murphy, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ and the BIA's negative findings regarding petitioner's credibility were supported by specific, cogent reasons and substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum; petitioner's CAT claims and her request for withholding of removal were based on the same evidence, and were properly rejected. 153441P.pdf 07/22/2016 United States v. Alejandro Manuel Torres-Ojeda U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3441 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant did not object to the adequacy of the court's explanation of its sentencing decision and his claim that the court committed procedural error by failing to provide an adequate explanation of why time served was not a sufficient sentence is reviewed for plain error; a court need not respond to every argument presented at sentencing, and the record the court created in this sentencing was sufficient to show the court had considered the defendant's arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision; below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. 153615U.pdf 07/22/2016 United States v. Willie Clark U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3615 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Commitment Proceedings. The district court did not err in determining the preponderance of the evidence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4245(d) established Clark is in need of commitment for mental health treatment in a suitable facility. 161048U.pdf 07/22/2016 United States v. Rashad McKay U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-1048 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Order denying defendant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) affirmed without comment.