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

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. He argued the district court should have suppressed the gun and shell casing found in his apartment. He challenged the steps the officers took from the moment they entered his apartment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a suspect who has just illegally used a gun is on a different Fourth Amendment footing than someone who merely possesses one. Moreover, the court wrote that first, when the officers asked Defendant whether they could “look” around “to make sure there’s nobody else in the apartment,” he replied, “[y]es ma’am. You can do whatever you want.” Based on that reply, he consented to at least a protective sweep of the apartment. Second, after Defendant blurted out that there had been suspicious activity outside, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that Defendant had provided consent to look there. Third, consent extended to the retrieval of the gun itself after Defendant confessed to “firing the shot” and admitted that the gun was in a kitchen cabinet. View "United States v. Cornell Williams" on Justia Law

Officers shot and killed Brian Quinones-Rosario as he approached officers with the knife drawn. His widow as trustee, sued the officers and their employing municipalities. She alleged an excessive use of force that resulted in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court concluded that the officers did not commit a constitutional violation, and granted judgment for the officers and the municipalities. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the use of force “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”. Applying those principles, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Quinones, the court concluded that the officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable. The court explained that Quinones-Rosario posed an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers. He aggressively wielded a knife that he refused to drop despite repeated commands to do so. He then charged at the officers with the knife. One officer deployed a non-lethal taser against him, but it had no effect. The officers reasonably believed that Quinones-Rosario posed a serious threat to their safety. The officers fired more rounds when Quinones-Rosario survived the first round of shots and continued to approach the officers with the knife. The court concluded that their actions were a reasonable defensive response under the circumstances. View "Ashley Quinones v. City of Edina, MN" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs placed their child AMS at a private academy after the Chamberlain School District did not meet AMS’s needs. A state hearing examiner decided that Chamberlain violated federal law and awarded Plaintiffs costs associated with AMS’s placement at the academy. The district court affirmed.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Chamberlain argued that Plaintiffs weren’t eligible to remove the case from state court to federal court because they weren’t “defendants” under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). The court explained that while Plaintiffs initially sought to recover from Chamberlain, their status changed when Chamberlain sought the state court’s review of the hearing examiner’s decision. At that point, Chamberlain became the plaintiff for removal purposes. Thus, because Plaintiffs were defendants, they were allowed to remove, so the district court didn’t err in denying remand. Further, the court explained that giving due weight to the outcome of the administrative proceedings, it concludes that Chamberlain denied AMS a FAPE. View "Judith Steckelberg v. Chamberlain School District" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District of South Dakota challenging the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in a custody matter involving his minor daughter, C.S.N. Petitioner claimed that the Tribal Court’s refusal to recognize and enforce North Dakota state court orders awarding him custody of C.S.N. violated the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1738A. The district court granted summary judgment to the Tribal Court after concluding that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes. Petitioner appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes. As a result, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court is not obligated under that statute to enforce the North Dakota court orders awarding custody of C.S.N. to Petitioner. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Tribal Court. The court further explained that its conclusion that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes is further supported by the fact that when Congress intends for tribes to be subject to statutory full-faith-and-credit requirements, it expressly says so. View "Aarin Nygaard v. Tricia Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant and co-Defendant were convicted in district court on charges arising out of the kidnapping of Defendant’s minor grandchildren. Defendant appealed her conviction for aiding and abetting kidnapping, and co-Defendant appealed his conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of firearms. Defendant appealed, asserting (1) the district court erred in refusing to admit the full recording of her interview with law enforcement; (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury and preparing the jury verdict form; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Co-Defendant appealed, asserting the district court erred when it (1) declined to grant his motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) committed procedural error.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that co-Defendant has not offered a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, the court wrote that the children’s mother testified that she did not give consent to co-Defendant to take the children and that Defendant told her that co-Defendant was going to take the children because the mother did not love them, did not deserve to be their mother, and was not going to be able to see them ever again. The court found that the record contains more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty of aiding and abetting kidnapping. View "United States v. Nora Guevara Triana" on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to federal controlled substance offenses, and all three appealed their sentences.   The Fourth Circuit vacated each defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court explained that Texas case law indicates that a defendant can be convicted of “offering to sell a controlled substance” under Section 481.112(a) without having the intent to distribute or dispense drugs. An offer-to-sell conviction is thus categorically broader than an attempt to commit a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines. The court explained that the government bears the burden of proving “the facts necessary to establish a sentencing enhancement” by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, the court concluded that, once Defendant objected to the factual recitation in the PSR, the government failed to meet its burden as to both the obstruction-of-justice and the violent-threat enhancements. View "United States v. Jaime Campos" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. The district court sentenced Smith to 180 months imprisonment as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e). Defendant appealed an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenges his sentence. At issue on appeal is whether the seizure was nonetheless reasonable, and whether evidence discovered in the course of the seizure was admissible in Defendant’s prosecution.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the totality of the circumstances provided the officers with a reasonable, articulable basis to believe that the suspect they were looking for was in the car that they stopped. Here, the Officers had reasonable suspicion that the suspect used a particular cellular telephone. One of the officers received the telephone number from a known informant. The informant had proved reliable by providing accurate information about the suspect’s possession of guns and drugs in the past. The informant reported recently speaking with the suspect at the specified phone number. Officers were armed with a judicial warrant based on a finding of probable cause that the suspect used the target phone number. When officers then determined that the man traveled the same route as the telephone associated with the suspect a reasonable officer could have believed, mistakenly, that the man under surveillance was the suspect. Accordingly, the stop did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Romelle Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. One special condition of supervised release required him to participate in a sex offender treatment program. At sentencing, the district court1 overruled Defendant’s objection to this special condition because the government advised that he “had just been released from prison in 2014 for violating the terms of his Sex Offender Registry.” Defendant appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed and dismissed the appeal as moot. The court explained that the issue in the first revocation proceeding – Defendant’s refusal to attend sex offender treatment -- is behavior “capable of repetition” while “evading review.” Therefore, when the appeal in No. 23-1245 was filed, the court delayed ruling on the mootness issue, anticipating Defendant might challenge reimposition of this special condition in the second revocation sentence. But, the court wrote, he failed to do so. Additionally, neither brief in No. 23-1245 challenges the special conditions of supervised release reimposed in the second revocation sentence, including the sex offender treatment condition. The condition challenged in No. 22- 2610 was reimposed in the second revocation sentence and not challenged in the appeal of that sentence. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal in No. 22-2610 as moot. View "United States v. Adrian Weems" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for having knowingly procured her naturalization contrary to law in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1425(a). Defendant made several false statements in procuring her naturalization. The issues on appeal are whether the government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statements were material, as that element of the Section 1425(a) offense was defined in Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), and whether they were made “under oath.”
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant argued that the false statements were immaterial because they did not necessarily establish she lacked good moral character. The court disagreed, reasoning that 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(f) provides that “no person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who” gives false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit in violation of Section 1101(f)(6). Moreover, Defendant argued that “false testimony” is limited to false statements given verbally under oath. As the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statements in her N-400 Application for Naturalization were given orally and under oath, the government failed to present sufficient evidence, and we “need not even address materiality.” The court explained that the district court t was free to find the testimony of a USCIS supervisory officer more credible than the contrary opinion of Defendant’s expert, who admitted she had never attended a naturalization interview in Des Moines. Accordingly, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find she acted to obtain immigration benefits for her spouse. View "United States v. Deanah Cheboss" on Justia Law

Two dog owners sued a police officer and the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners after the officer shot a dog during an encounter at a residence. The dog owners alleged that the officer violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by unreasonably “seizing” the dog. They also asserted that the Board’s policies and customs caused the officer to commit the alleged violation. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer and the Board.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that given the behavior of the dog, and the failure of the owner to control the animal at the doorway, a reasonable officer could have perceived the dog as an imminent threat. Thus, the officer’s s firing of a first shot was reasonable. The court further wrote that the circumstances in LeMay are readily distinguishable from the officer’s doorway encounter with a growling dog who suddenly rushed at him and then turned in the direction of his fellow officer. View "Brandee Buschmann v. Kansas City Police Department" on Justia Law