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

Defendant appealed his sentence for revocation of supervised release. In this instance, the district court's earlier statement about counting on getting 36 months' incarceration for future violations did not display a deep-seated antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible where the district court gave a warning and recognized it was subject to change. The district court took great lengths to recite defendant's history, his performance on supervised release, and his attitude throughout the case. The court concluded that the district court acted reasonably, determining that defendant's behavior justified a 36-month sentence consecutive to his state sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Erik Kirk Kolski, filed suit against the City and police officers, alleging that defendants violated Kolski's constitutional rights when the officers used deadly force against Kolski during a response to a domestic disturbance with a weapon. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Glirbas and Cudd where the use of deadly force was constitutionally permissible because Kolski made threats and possessed a firearm. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Officers Glirbas and Cudd on the state-law claims on the basis of official immunity where plaintiff identified no evidence showing that the officers intentionally committed an act that they had reason to believe was prohibited and, instead, the evidence demonstrated that they acted reasonably in response to a significant threat of death or physical injury. View "Smith v. City of Brooklyn Park, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, serving a 144-month sentence for conspiring to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base, appealed the denial of his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court affirmed, concluding that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on his plea agreement. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide support to terrorists. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.4 where he planned the offense with the purpose of influencing or affecting government conduct; the district court did not err in relying on transcripts of his coconspirators from a related trial where the transcripts were relevant to defendant's sentencing inquiry; the district court did not err in finding that defendant obstructed justice by making a materially false statement to a probation officer and forfeited his acceptance of responsibility; and defendant's below-guidelines sentence was reasonable and was not excessive nor in stark disparity of his coconspirators. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mohamed" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court rejected petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective by failing to discover that the jury foreperson worked at the same casino as the victim's roommate because petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice where there was no evidence that the foreperson knew the roommate or that there was any jury bias; the court expanded the certificate of appealability (COA) to include petitioner's claim of juror partiality under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2); the Minnesota Supreme Court's legal determination that petitioner failed to support his claim that the foreperson was unable to be impartial was reasonable; and the district court did not err by denying the request for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "White v. Dingle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the State for violating section 102(a) of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a), and against Judge Gaertner, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The court concluded that plaintiff was not an eligible employee covered by the FMLA because she was a member of the personal staff of the judge, who held a public elective office; although plaintiff's blog posts and other speech discussed her own case in detail, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's speech related to a matter of public concern; plaintiff's actions were sufficient evidence of disruption; plaintiff did not cite clearly established law putting the judge on notice that Pickering balancing in a situation such as this would fall in plaintiff's favor, nor did the court identify any such case law; and the district court correctly determined that the judge was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's section 1983 claim where the judge did not have notice that his termination of an insubordinate employee who compromised the propriety and efficiency of his courtroom could violate her right to free speech. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hemminghaus v. State of Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that defendant knowingly participated in an agreement to manufacture marijuana; the jury found the codefendants to be credible and minor inconsistencies in their testimony did not create a basis upon which the court would disturb the jury's finding; the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence five out-of-court statements because they were admissible as declarations of coconspirators and the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy; and a term of 240 months' imprisonment did not violate the Eighth Amendment and was not grossly disproportionate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Meeks" on Justia Law

Defendant, a policeman until his arrest, appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to attempting to aid and abet the possession with intent to distribute approximately 1000 pounds of marijuana. The court concluded that the district court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and explained the chosen sentence. Further, defendant's within-range sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being found in the United States after committing a felony and being deported. The court joined its sister circuits and held that a district court performing a modified categorical analysis to determine whether a prior state conviction qualifies for a sentencing enhancement may not rely upon allegations in a superceded indictment to which the defendant did not plead guilty. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's determination that defendant's Arizona conviction for solicitation to commit "misconduct involving weapons" qualifies as a firearms offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iii). View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Postal Service, alleging that the Postal Service violated her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., after she was terminated for absenteeism. Plaintiff worked for the Postal Service under a series of appointments in a status known as a "casual" employee. The court concluded that plaintiff's case consisted of an unpersuasive argument of temporal proximity combined with a collection of challenges to agency practice and explanations that did not support an inference of impermissible motive. Accordingly, this was not a submissible case of discrimination and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Malloy v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law