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

Plaintiff, a native of Afghanistan, filed suit seeking to compel officials to decide immediately his pending application for adjustment of status. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officials where the officials' delay in adjudicating plaintiff's adjustment-of-status application was not unreasonable. View "Irshad v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Choice filed suit against BancorpSouth for lost funds and BancorpSouth counterclaimed for attorney's fees. The court concluded that the loss of funds from Choice's account falls on Choice because there was no genuine dispute of fact as to whether BanCorpSouth's security procedures - which included password protection, daily transfer limits, device authentication, and dual control - were commercially reasonable; BancorpSouth met its burden of establishing that it accepted the payment order at issue in good faith; and BanCorpSouth complied with procedures or Choice's instructions. The court also concluded that the portion of the indemnification provision relating to attorney's fees was not inconsistent with Article 4A of the UCC and that BancorpSouth may seek attorney's fees from Choice under this provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BancorpSouth, reversed the district court's dismissal of BancorpSouth's counterclaim on the pleadings, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Choice Escrow and Land Title v. BancorpSouth Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his revocation of supervised release, arguing that the district court violated his due process right to confront witnesses when it admitted hearsay evidence - a police report - at the revocation hearing without engaging in the analysis required by United States v. Bell and later decisions. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the Bell issue was not properly preserved in the district court. View "United States v. Simms" on Justia Law

Defendants Conway, Robinson, and Randolph appealed their conviction for various drug and weapons offenses. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of the offenses; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence failed to support the giving of a buyer-seller instruction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a multiple conspiracies preliminary instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Conway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff was unable to show a prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to show circumstances which would give rise to an inference of discrimination. Plaintiff also failed to show direct or inferential evidence his employer engaged in retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Young v. Builders Steel Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base and his concurrent sentence for managing a home for the purpose of distributing cocaine base. There was sufficient evidence to find that defendant engaged in a conspiracy involving in excess of 280 grams and any error was not plain; because the district court properly applied the separate U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 enhancement to find an offense level of 37, no plain error occurred because even without the application U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12), defendant's offense level would have been the same; and the district court did not abuse its discretion and the sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Goodrich" on Justia Law

Defendants Martinus and Maurice appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court concluded that Martinus's eighty-five month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the appropriate factors in varying from the guidelines and adequately explained its sentence. Because the district court would have sentenced Maurice to the same sentence even without the government's breach of the plea agreement, the court could not say that the breach of the plea agreement required reversal under the plain error standard; the district court sufficiently explained the defendant-specific facts relevant to sentencing Maurice and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing Maurice to the same term of imprisonment as Martinus; and Maurice's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sayles" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a recorded interview supported the imminently reasonable inference that the gun defendant owned and wanted out of the residence was the same gun found by police shortly after his arrest. The court held that a violation of Minnesota Statute 609.487, subd. 3, fleeing an officer in a motor vehicle, presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another and is therefore a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court rejected defendant's claim that the ACCA's residual clause is void for vagueness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Pate" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Because petitioner failed to show prejudice, the court declined to address whether her attorney's performance was deficient. The only prejudice petitioner identified was admission of her grand jury testimony at trial. The court concluded, however, that the grand jury testimony was cumulative of other trial evidence and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had she not testified before the grand jury. Assuming that petitioner's attorney advised her to reject the plea, she cannot prove that counsel's performance was deficient. Any advice that petitioner hold the government to its burden at trial was not constitutionally unreasonable. Further, nothing in the record indicated that petitioner wanted to accept the plea offer and would have acknowledged her guilt even if properly advised about the risks of trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hyles v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, guardian ad litem for minor H.T.P., appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this products liability case. Plaintiff alleged that Enfamil, an infant formula, was defective or unreasonably dangerous due to C.sak contamination. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow its experts' testimony under Rule 702. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiff's experts where the methodology employed by the experts was scientifically valid, could properly be applied to the facts of the case and was therefore reliable enough to assist the trier of fact. With the expert testimony proposed, plaintiff has created an issue of fact for a jury on the issue of the specific cause of H.T.P.'s C. sak infection and plaintiff was entitled to attempt to prove his claim for products liability under Minnesota law. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders of the district court excluding the testimony of plaintiff's experts, and granting summary judgment and costs in favor of Mead, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Co." on Justia Law