OPINIONS ARE POSTED DAILY BETWEEN 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Today is: [ Monday September 26, 2016 ] - - - - - NO OPINIONS HAVE BEEN POSTED TODAY The most recent opinions are for: [ 09/23/2016 ]  
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.
151841U.pdf  09/23/2016  United States  v.  David Goodwin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   15-1841
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration under Mathis v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). The government concedes defendant's sentence should be vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing.
161014U.pdf  09/23/2016  Gural Foster  v.  Carolyn Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-1014
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The district court did nor err in dismissing Foster's complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
161235U.pdf  09/23/2016  Christine Brown  v.  Carolyn Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-1235
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the denial of benefits; the ALJ adequately accounted for claimant's mental impairments in determining her residual functional capacity.
162251U.pdf  09/23/2016  United States  v.  Eldon Philip Anderson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:   16-2251
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
[UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges Criminal case - Sentencing. The Sixth Amendment, which grants a defendant the right to counsel, does not apply to revocation-of-supervised-release proceedings;in any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's waiver of his right to counsel.