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

Petitioner, a Kenyan citizen, sought review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's denial of her motion for a continuance and her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner asserted that she feared she would be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) if she returned to Kenya. Assuming, without deciding, that the IJ violated petitioner's statutory right to counsel by not at least calling her counsel to see that her statutory right to counsel was honored, petitioner cannot prove prejudice. Here, neither petitioner nor her counsel has set forth evidence affirmatively proving that petitioner was entitled to the relief that she seeks. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Njoroge v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the six-and-a-half-year delay between indictment and arrest violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court concluded that defendant's speedy trial claim failed because the government pursued him with reasonable diligence from indictment to arrest and defendant failed to show actual or specific prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Valencia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming the ALJ's determination that he was not entitled to disability benefits or supplemental security income. The court concluded that the ALJ's determination that plaintiff retained the residual functioning capacity to return to work as a truck driver was supported by substantial evidence. Because the ALJ did not proceed to step five of the five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims on remand, vocational expert testimony was not required. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hill v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Arnold filed suit against Gander in Missouri state court alleging breach of a commercial lease. Gander initiated removal to federal court three times but the district court remanded to the state court. On appeal, Gander challenged the district court's remand of the misrepresentation claim of intervenor, the City of Arnold, which Gander removed on the eve of trial in state court. The court concluded that the underlying basis for the district court's remand order now under review was its observation that Gander was again attempting to remove part of a state case more than one year after it had been initiated. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's remand decision was based on the 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) procedural flaw of untimely removal. View "Arnold Crossroads, L.L.C., et al. v. Gander Mountain Co." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was arrested for violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 578.095, which prohibits flag desecration, he filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Cape Girardeau, the arresting police officer, and the prosecuting attorney. Both the arresting officer and attorney stated that they were unaware of the Supreme Court's decisions in Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, which struck down statutes criminalizing flag desecration as unconstitutional. Plaintiff's charges were dismissed against him and he was released from jail. On appeal, the officer challenged the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and award of attorney's fees. The State, which intervened, appealed the district court's order declaring its flag desecration statute facially unconstitutional and the award of attorney's fees. The court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where a reasonably competent officer in his position would have known that plaintiff's expressive conduct was constitutionally protected and would have concluded no arrest warrant should issue for the expressive conduct engaged in by plaintiff. The court concluded that Mo. Rev. Stat. 578.095 was overbroad and criminalizes a substantial amount of expressive activity. Further, the statute was not susceptible to an appropriate narrowing construction and, therefore, the district court did not err in holding the statute to be facially unconstitutional. The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the officer and the state jointly and severally liable for attorney's fees and costs; the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees based on the rate for the St. Louis legal market, instead of Cape Girardeau; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Cape Girardeau. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Snider, III v. Peters" on Justia Law

This appeal is a companion to Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. The appeal concerns action the district court took while purporting to exercise jurisdiction over that dispute, namely, disqualifying plaintiffs' counsel (Zerger and Mauer). Greenwood sought Zerger and Mauer's disqualification due to a conflict of interest out of the attorneys' former representation of Greenwood and its current representation of plaintiffs. The district court entered the disqualification order based on its inherent need to manage its bar and uphold the rules of professional conduct. The record supported the district court's determination that the two matters were substantially related and there was a conflict of interest. Therefore, although the court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the merits case, the court concluded that the district court had authority to disqualify counsel and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. View "Zerger & Mauer v. City of Greenwood" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of reentry after removal. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his identity obtained during a traffic stop. Because the court concluded that the trooper did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop, it was unnecessary to consider whether he had reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation or whether suppression of the identity evidence obtained was an appropriate remedy under these circumstances. The traffic stop occurred five miles from the nearest town in freezing temperatures and neither passenger had a valid driver's license. No written agreement is required for a state official to cooperate with the Attorney General in identifying, apprehending, and detaining any individual unlawfully present in the United States. In this case, the trooper's acts did not exceed the scope of his authority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ovando-Garzo" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of distribution of heroin resulting in the death of another in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial without hearing of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court remanded petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel advised petitioner that section 841(b)(1)(C) mandated a life sentence in petitioner's circumstances and, if not, whether petitioner was prejudiced as a result of the omission. View "Roundtree v. United States" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from the lease of a commercial building from CRG to Smucker. The lease provided that, after its initial term, it would automatically renew unless Smucker provided written notice of its intent to terminate the lease 180 days prior to the end of the current term. When the termination notice to CRG arrive after the deadline, CRG refused to accept the notice and filed suit against Smucker. The court concluded that it would be unconscionable to hold Smucker to the renewal because Smucker had substantially performed its lease obligations. The court concluded that the district court erred in failing to treat the cancellation provision in this case as an option to terminate. The court also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude as a matter of law that enforcing the terms of the lease against Smucker would cause Smucker such hardship as to make literal enforcement of the option unconscionable. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Commercial Resource Group, LLC v. The J.M. Smucker Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Tanzania, sought review of several of the BIA's orders. The court concluded that the court's jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider (May 6 order). Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion, the court denied the petition for review. The court granted, however, petitioner's motion for leave to file a reply brief out of time. View "Mshihiri v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law