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   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges] 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.