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

Roberto Williams was convicted by a jury of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. The charges stemmed from two separate incidents. In the first incident, on July 31, 2020, St. Cloud police officers stopped a car in which Williams was a passenger and found a handgun in the glove compartment. In the second incident, on November 13, 2020, after a fatal shooting involving Williams's fiancée's son, police found two firearms in a garbage bin outside Williams's home.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Williams's pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained during the July 31 stop and from a warrant search of his cell phone. The court also denied his motion to exclude evidence of five prior Illinois convictions, which Williams argued were invalid and could not serve as predicates for the felon-in-possession charges. Williams was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on each count.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Williams's motion to suppress evidence from the July 31 stop, concluding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress evidence from the cell phone search, applying the Leon good faith exception. Additionally, the court rejected Williams's argument that his prior Illinois convictions were invalid, holding that his motion was an impermissible collateral attack on the state convictions, which had not been vacated by an Illinois court.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining Williams's convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pollyann Sorcan, a member of the Rock Ridge School District board, was excluded from committee assignments and meetings by the board. The board alleged that Sorcan undermined the District’s mission and violated policies and data privacy laws. Sorcan filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the District and Bill Addy, the board chair, claiming retaliation for her protected speech under the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Sorcan’s case. The court concluded that Addy was entitled to legislative immunity and that Sorcan failed to state a claim against the District under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The court found that Sorcan did not identify a persistent pattern of unconstitutional behavior by the District.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Addy, sued in his official capacity, was not entitled to legislative immunity because such immunity does not extend to local officials in their official capacities. The court also found that the district court erred in requiring Sorcan to identify a persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct. Instead, a single decision by authorized decisionmakers can represent an official policy under Monell. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sorcan v. Rock Ridge School District" on Justia Law

Dontavius R. Sharkey was convicted by a jury of two counts of felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of a straw-purchasing conspiracy. The district court sentenced him to 360 months in prison. Sharkey appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutional and that the district court improperly used acquitted conduct to enhance his sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found Sharkey's acquitted conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence and used it to increase his Guidelines range. Sharkey's arguments against the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the use of acquitted conduct were rejected based on existing precedent. The district court also applied enhancements for using a firearm in connection with another felony and for his role as an organizer in the criminal activity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Sharkey's constitutional challenges were foreclosed by precedent, specifically citing United States v. Jackson. The court also upheld the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing, referencing United States v. Watts and United States v. Bullock. Additionally, the court found no procedural error in the application of the Guidelines enhancements and determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly considered the relevant factors and did not give undue weight to any improper or irrelevant factors. View "United States v. Sharkey" on Justia Law

Robert Peck, Jr. entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss one of the charges. The case arose from an investigation in July 2020, where officers, acting on anonymous tips, used a drug-sniffing dog to detect drugs outside Peck's apartment. Based on the dog's alert, they obtained a warrant and found drugs and firearms in Peck's apartment.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Peck's motions to suppress the evidence obtained from his apartment and cell phone, as well as his motion to dismiss the firearm possession charge. The court ruled that the officers did not trespass on Peck's curtilage and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The court also found that applying the firearm possession statute to Peck did not violate the Second Amendment, despite his prior nonviolent drug conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the good-faith exception applied, as the officers reasonably relied on existing precedent when using the drug-sniffing dog. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the firearm possession statute as applied to Peck, citing precedent that supports prohibiting firearm possession by individuals with felony convictions, regardless of the nature of the prior offense. View "United States v. Peck" on Justia Law

Joe May was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of the Anti-Kickback statute, among other charges, related to defrauding TRICARE. May, a medical doctor, was recruited to sign prescriptions for compounded drugs without evaluating patients. He signed 226 prescriptions, mostly without determining medical necessity. May received cash payments for his participation. When investigated, May created false medical records and lied to the FBI.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas convicted May on all counts and sentenced him to 102 months imprisonment, ordering restitution of over $4.6 million. May appealed, challenging the admission of business records, limitations on cross-examination, jury instructions, the government's closing argument, and the sufficiency of evidence for certain charges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting business records or limiting cross-examination. The court upheld the jury instructions and found no error in the government's closing argument. The court determined there was sufficient evidence for the conspiracy, mail fraud, and kickback charges. However, the court found plain error in one count of aggravated identity theft related to Perry Patterson, as the jury was not instructed on the correct underlying offense.The Eighth Circuit reversed the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count related to Patterson, remanded to vacate the special assessment for that count, and affirmed all other aspects of the case. View "United States v. May" on Justia Law

Judy Brown, a biracial woman, was hired by Conagra Brands, Inc. in October 1997. After a workplace injury in 2015, she became disabled and filed a workers' compensation claim in 2017. Conagra temporarily transferred her to a different position as an accommodation and continued paying her at the higher rate until July 2020, when her work restrictions became permanent, and her pay was reduced. Following the death of a colleague, Conagra posted job openings, and Brown applied for a position but was not selected. She was assigned to less favorable shifts and subsequently filed discrimination charges. Brown was fired in December 2021 and sued Conagra, alleging race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Nebraska common law.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted Conagra’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Brown did not challenge the district court’s finding that her race and disability discrimination claims based on the July 2020 pay reduction were time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Brown failed to plead sufficient facts to support her claims. Specifically, she did not provide enough details to infer race discrimination, did not plausibly allege a disability under the ADA or NFEPA, and did not establish a causal connection for her retaliation claims. Additionally, the court found that Brown did not state a plausible claim for common law unlawful retaliation, as she did not allege any immediate precipitating events or facts that could infer a causal nexus between her workers' compensation claim and the adverse employment actions. View "Brown v. Conagra Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tiffaney Whitt, on behalf of her minor children, and Jeremiah Parker, Whitt’s adult son, filed a lawsuit against Kearney School District and Durham School Services, L.P., due to racial harassment experienced by Parker and his siblings on a school bus operated by Durham. Plaintiffs alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim against Durham, asserting they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Kearney and Durham, which required safe, harassment-free transportation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Durham’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, which challenged the validity of Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim. Durham then filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its contract with Kearney. The district court denied this motion, concluding that Durham waived its right to enforce the arbitration clause by not raising it earlier in the litigation. Durham appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Durham knew of its right to arbitrate, as it possessed the contract containing the arbitration clause, and acted inconsistently with that right by engaging in extensive litigation and discovery before filing the motion to compel arbitration. The court also noted that the district court’s consideration of prejudice to Plaintiffs, although erroneous, did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The appellate court rejected Durham’s argument that it could not have known to seek arbitration until the district court’s summary judgment ruling and found that Durham’s actions were inconsistent with preserving its right to arbitrate. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ request to adopt a process for certifying interlocutory appeals as frivolous and their request for costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38. View "Parker v. Durham School Services, L.P." on Justia Law

Mohammad Al Sharairei and his wife owned and operated Puff N Stuff II, a shop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which sold various products, including synthetic cannabinoids labeled as "potpourri" and "incense." In May 2013, law enforcement conducted an undercover purchase at the store, and subsequent testing revealed the presence of synthetic cannabinoids. A search warrant executed in June 2013 led to the seizure of products and sales records indicating that synthetic cannabinoids constituted a significant portion of the store's revenue. Al Sharairei admitted to being a major seller of these products and described methods to avoid law enforcement detection.The government charged Al Sharairei with maintaining a premises for the distribution of controlled substance analogues and conspiracy to distribute controlled substance analogues. After failing to appear for a scheduled guilty plea hearing, Al Sharairei absconded and was later extradited from Brazil. In September 2022, a jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison and ordered a forfeiture of $425,000.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Al Sharairei challenged the district court's willful blindness instruction, the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of his motion for a new trial, the forfeiture order, and the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit held that the willful blindness instruction was appropriate, as the evidence supported an inference that Al Sharairei was aware of the high probability that the substances were controlled and took deliberate actions to avoid learning the facts. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and upheld the district court's decisions on the forfeiture order and sentencing enhancements. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "United States v. Sharairei" on Justia Law

Barton Hankins was hired by Crain Automotive Holdings, LLC in 2019 as Chief Operating Officer and was offered a deferred compensation plan (DCP). After four years, Hankins resigned and sought compensation under the DCP, which Crain denied. Hankins then filed a lawsuit under the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to claim his benefits. The DCP stipulated that Hankins could earn a percentage of Crain’s fair market value upon his exit, with full vesting at five years. Having served four years, Hankins was entitled to 80% of the benefits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted judgment in favor of Hankins, concluding that the DCP did not require the creation of an Employment Agreement or a Confidentiality, Noncompete, and Nonsolicitation Agreement for enforceability. The court found that Crain’s claims of misconduct by Hankins were unsubstantiated and awarded Hankins attorney’s fees, determining that Crain’s conduct was sufficiently culpable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Crain’s interpretation of the DCP was unreasonable. The court found that the DCP’s Article 4, which mentioned the Employment and Confidentiality Agreements, did not create a condition precedent but rather a condition subsequent. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, noting that Crain’s actions lacked merit and were raised only after Hankins sought his vested compensation. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Hankins v. Crain Automotive Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Jaylyn McGhee was involved in a shooting outside his home in Davenport, Iowa, where his six-year-old son was injured. Law enforcement responded to the scene and found shell casings, suspected narcotics, and money outside McGhee's house. Officers observed blood spatter and a powdery substance on the deck and stairs leading to a side door of the house. Based on these observations, they obtained a search warrant and found drugs and firearms inside McGhee's home. McGhee was charged with drug and firearm offenses, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied McGhee's motion to suppress the evidence found in his home, ruling that the officers' observations from the front yard were lawful and that exigent circumstances justified their entry into the side yard. The court also applied a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with drug trafficking, based on evidence from controlled buys and the proximity of the drugs and firearms found in McGhee's home.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the officers' initial observations were lawful and that exigent circumstances justified their further actions. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement, finding that the district court did not err in relying on the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines and that the evidence supported the connection between the firearms and drug trafficking. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. McGhee" on Justia Law