Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Evan Brown Bull was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. The government presented evidence from thirteen witnesses and various forms of documentation, including videos and Facebook messages, detailing Brown Bull's drug dealings from 2016 to 2023. The Probation Office's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a base offense level of 32, with adjustments that increased the total offense level to 40, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Brown Bull objected to the PSR's findings and requested a downward variance to 180 months.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota overruled Brown Bull's objections and applied three sentencing enhancements: a two-level increase for obstruction of justice, a four-level increase for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, and a two-level increase for committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. The court ultimately sentenced Brown Bull to 400 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's application of the sentencing enhancements. The court held that Brown Bull's pretrial jail messages and Facebook post constituted obstruction of justice, that he was an organizer or leader of the drug conspiracy, and that his criminal conduct was part of his livelihood. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and upheld the 400-month sentence. View "United States v. Bull" on Justia Law

Karla Smith and Holly Bladel sued Iowa state officials and the State of Iowa after Iowa opted out of federal unemployment programs established during the Covid-19 pandemic. These programs, created under the CARES Act, provided various unemployment benefits. Iowa initially participated in these programs but decided to end its participation in June 2021. Smith and Bladel claimed that this decision violated the U.S. Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa state law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that the plaintiffs lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits. Smith and Bladel appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Smith's official-capacity claims against Iowa and its officials, as the claims did not fall under the Ex parte Young exception for ongoing violations of federal law. The court also found that Smith lacked a protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits because Iowa had the discretion to opt out of the programs. Consequently, Smith's due process claim against the Governor and Director in their individual capacities failed. Additionally, the court ruled that Smith's state law claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and her request for declaratory relief was inappropriate as it sought to address past actions rather than future conduct. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed all of Smith's claims. View "Smith v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Shawn Russell Sorensen was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment based on prior state convictions for drug offenses. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not contesting the qualification of his prior convictions as "felony drug offenses" under 21 U.S.C. § 841’s sentencing enhancement scheme.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed Sorensen's motion. The court found that his counsel's performance was not deficient, as the argument regarding the categorical approach to his prior convictions was considered novel at the time of sentencing. Sorensen appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that even if counsel's performance was deficient, Sorensen failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court applied the categorical and modified categorical approaches to determine that Sorensen's prior convictions under Arizona and South Dakota statutes qualified as felony drug offenses. The Arizona statute was found to be divisible, and Sorensen's conviction for possession of methamphetamine matched the federal definition of a felony drug offense. Similarly, the South Dakota statute was also deemed divisible, and Sorensen's conviction for possession of methamphetamine under this statute qualified as a felony drug offense. Therefore, Sorensen's sentence was upheld, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Sorensen v. United States" on Justia Law

Sam Boyd was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Boyd filed motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his Speedy Trial Act rights were violated, and to sever the gun counts from the conspiracy count. Both motions were denied.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota issued a continuance on November 7, 2022, due to Boyd's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence. The hearing was delayed due to disputes over the witness list and difficulties in procuring testimony. Boyd filed additional documents in February 2023, and the magistrate judge recommended denying Boyd's motions in June. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in August and denied Boyd's motion to dismiss the indictment and motion to sever the firearm counts from the drug conspiracy count. The case proceeded to trial, and Boyd was convicted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the continuance and denying the motion to dismiss, as the continuance was justified by the complexity of the motions and witness issues. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to sever, as the evidence of the guns and drugs would be admissible in separate trials under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Brett Jens resigned from his position at Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, and subsequently joined a competitor, J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis filed a lawsuit against Jens and Simplot, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement and to prevent Simplot’s alleged tortious interference with the agreement. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the restrictive covenants were no longer enforceable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Jens. The court found that the restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement did not survive past the agreement’s expiration date of February 28, 2010. Wilbur-Ellis appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction, arguing that the restrictive covenants were intended to begin when Jens’s employment ended. Simplot cross-appealed, contending that Wilbur-Ellis could not enforce the restrictive covenants because the employer in the agreement was Wilbur-Ellis Air, LLC, not Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the restrictive covenants did not survive the expiration of the employment agreement. The court emphasized that the agreement did not contain a survival clause or any language indicating that the restrictive covenants were intended to extend beyond the termination of the agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits, which is the most significant factor in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. View "Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Jens" on Justia Law

The case involves Billings County and its commissioners, who appealed a district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction preventing them from entering the property of Sandra Short, David Short, Donald Short, and Sarah Sarbacker. The dispute centers on the County's attempt to use eminent domain to construct a bridge over the Little Missouri River, known as the Little Missouri River Crossing (LMRC). The Shorts had previously settled a lawsuit with the County in 2021, where the County agreed not to pursue eminent domain for the LMRC project. Despite this, a newly elected Board of Commissioners decided to proceed with the project in 2023, leading the Shorts to file a new lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Shorts, finding that they were likely to succeed on their breach-of-contract claim based on the Settlement Agreement. The court refrained from deciding on the validity of the Settlement Agreement, leaving that issue for the state court to address. The district court also stayed its proceedings, pending the outcome of the state court case, and denied the County's motion to dismiss without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the County could not lawfully contract away its power of eminent domain, as it is an essential attribute of sovereignty. The court concluded that the Settlement Agreement was contrary to law and that the Shorts were not likely to succeed on their breach-of-contract claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Short v. Billings County" on Justia Law

In June 2022, Angelica Agena was stopped by deputies in Lancaster County, Nebraska, for a traffic violation. During the stop, the deputies observed suspicious behavior and an open alcohol container in the vehicle. Neither Agena nor the driver, Gary Payton, had a valid driver’s license. The deputies found a butane torch lighter and, upon searching the vehicle, discovered methamphetamine in Agena’s purse. Agena was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Agena’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury found Agena guilty on both counts. She was sentenced to fifty-four months in prison and five years of supervised release.Agena appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the denial of her motion to suppress, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict her. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.The Eighth Circuit held that the traffic stop was justified based on the defective taillight and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop due to the open container violation. The court also found that the search of Agena’s purse was supported by probable cause. Additionally, the court ruled that the admission of text messages and expert testimony about drug slang was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Agena’s convictions. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Agena" on Justia Law

LADS Network Solutions, Inc. sued Agilis Systems, LLC and its subsidiaries for copyright infringement of LADS’s courier management software, GPStrac. LADS licensed GPStrac to Agilis from 2004 to 2009 and sought copyright protection in 2014. LADS’s application claimed the first publication date was May 1, 2000, but the Copyright Office found a 2004 copyright notice within the source code. LADS resubmitted the correct code, and the Copyright Office approved the copyright. LADS alleged Agilis continued using GPStrac after the license expired.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Agilis, invalidating LADS’s copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 411(b). The court found that LADS had knowledge of inaccuracies in the application due to references to APIs that did not exist on the claimed publication date. The district court rejected LADS’s argument that § 411(b)(1) requires intent to defraud the Copyright Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether LADS had actual knowledge of the inaccuracies in the application. The court noted that the API references alone did not necessarily provide actual knowledge of the code’s creation date. Agilis failed to show that LADS knew the API’s creation date from any source. The court held that this factual dispute precluded summary judgment and reversed the district court’s decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "LADS Network Solutions, Inc. v. Agilis Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

David Michael Woods was convicted by a jury of four counts related to the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. The charges stemmed from his sexual abuse of his 12-year-old foster son and 15-year-old adopted son, which he documented and distributed. The district court sentenced him to a total of 1,200 months in prison. Woods appealed his conviction and sentence.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Woods was allowed to represent himself after a Faretta hearing, despite the court's warnings about the dangers of self-representation. The jury found him guilty on all counts. Woods did not object to the court's decision to allow him to represent himself at trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Woods argued that he did not validly waive his right to counsel, but the court found that the district court's Faretta inquiry was sufficient. The court also rejected Woods's claims regarding the district court's reasonable doubt instruction, the alleged coercion of his decision not to testify, and the warning given to a potential witness about perjury. Additionally, the court found no cumulative error that would warrant a new trial.Woods also challenged the imposition of a $2,500 assessment under the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act, arguing that he lacked the ability to pay. The court held that Woods did not meet his burden to prove indigence and noted that he could earn money while serving his sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Woods's conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. Woods" on Justia Law

An egg farm owned by Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. experienced a collapse of its poultry cage system in 2020, resulting in significant damage and the death of a farm worker. Rembrandt had contracted with Tecno Poultry Equipment, SpA in 2006 to design and manufacture the cage system, which included a provision for Tecno to supervise its installation. The installation was completed in 2007. Rembrandt sued Tecno in 2021, alleging strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and negligence. The district court allowed the negligence claim to proceed to trial, where a jury found that Tecno did not breach its duty to supervise the installation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa granted summary judgment for Tecno on the strict products liability and breach of implied warranties claims. At trial, the jury heard conflicting expert testimony regarding the cause of the collapse. Rembrandt's expert attributed the collapse to missing screws and misplaced bolts, while Tecno's experts blamed improper manure disposal by Rembrandt. The jury ultimately sided with Tecno, and the district court entered judgment in favor of Tecno.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Rembrandt argued that the district court erred in denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law and in excluding a screenshot of Tecno's website. The appellate court held that Rembrandt failed to preserve its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by not renewing its motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury verdict. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the website screenshot, as it was not relevant to the 2006 contract. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. v. Tecno Poultry Equipment, SpA" on Justia Law