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

Defendant appealed his 48-month sentence imposed after the second revocation of his supervised release. The court concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Beran" on Justia Law

Defendants Holmes and Rendon appealed their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "narco-saint" testimony where, without the testimony, the significance of such evidence would not be familiar to average jurors with no previous exposure to the drug trafficking business; because the narco-saint evidence was relevant to establish the existence of the conspiracy, its admission was proper for both parties, and no limiting instruction was necessary; the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Holmes was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and Holmes' sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Appellant, a software engineer, filed no federal individual income tax return for 2007. The Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency alleging unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest of more than $250,000 based on a substitute return prepared by the IRS. On appeal, appellant challenged the Tax Court's IRA rollover and business bad debt rulings. The court concluded that appellant's April 30, 2007 contribution was a qualifying partial rollover contribution under I.R.C. 408(d)(3)(D) and appellant was entitled to reduce his taxable IRA distributions by $120,000. Accordingly, the court reversed the Tax Court's decision as to this issue. The court concluded that the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that appellant failed to prove that his dominant motivation for making the four loans in question made them deductible bad debts when they became worthless in December 2007. The court remanded for a redetermination of the deficiency. View "Haury v. CIR" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence and strict products liability suit against Stryker, the manufacturer and seller of the pain pump that was inserted into her shoulder to mitigate her pain while recovering from surgery. Plaintiff's husband filed a claim for loss of consortium. The court concluded that Stryker could not have foreseen the potential for articular cartilage damage as the result of the surgical implementation of its pain pump on the medical community's knowledge in 2002; Stryker, as a matter of law, had no duty to protect or warn plaintiff of the harm that Stryker's pain pumps may inflict; and the FDA denials did not indicate to Stryker that use of its pain pumps in intra-articular spaces was unsafe or could result in foreseeable harm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Stryker. View "Mack, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al." on Justia Law

BLB, an aviation company, brought contract claims against Jet Linx and others, and Jet Linx counterclaimed. The court concluded that Jet Linx's tender of a check and BLB's act of depositing the check did not amount to an accord and satisfaction; the district court did not clearly err by finding that BLB did not agree to the terms of the August 2008 letter at issue and, as a result, the district court did not err by rejecting Jet Linx's defense of accord and satisfaction; the court affirmed the district court's judgment for BLB with respect to its claim for unpaid lease payments under the dry lease agreement (DLA) and the award of $141,400 to BLB; the court affirmed the district court's judgment for BLB on its claim that Jet Linx breached the management services agreement (MSA) by "marking up" the cost of maintenance; the court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment with regard to Jet Linx's failure to maintain the maintenance records and part tags where it was error to choose diminution in values as the appropriate measure of BLB's damages; and the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Jet Linx on its counterclaim for breach of the MSA and the award of damages to Jet Linx. View "BLB Aviation South Carolina v. Jet Linx Aviation, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

The Secretary petitioned for review of OSHA's order approving without comment an underlying ALJ's decision that addressed competing interpretations of a Department of Labor safety regulation, 29 U.S.C. 1910.212(a)(1). The Secretary determined that the regulation requires lathes such as those used by Loren Cook to have guards to protect workers from ejected workpieces. The court concluded that the Secretary's interpretation of the regulation in this matter was reasonable and well supported by the plain meaning of the regulation's text. Pursuant to Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, the court deferred to the Secretary's interpretation rather than the Commission. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, reversed the order of the Commission, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Perez v. Loren Cook Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the district court properly denied defendant's motion for acquittal and properly admitted the 7.2 kilograms of cocaine which the DEA seized as part of its investigation into the conspiracy; and defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of this physical evidence failed because the analyst who tested and identified the substance as cocaine testified at trial, where defendant had the opportunity to cross examine him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ortega" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lieutenant of the Arkansas police department, appealed her conviction of two counts of attempted extortion under color of official right and two counts of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict defendant of attempted extortion where she was not entitled to the $1000 a government recruit paid her and where driving her marked police car, to escort the recruit on a drug delivery, while in uniform was an official act. The evidence also supported defendant's attempted possession conviction based on her constructive possession of the drugs the recruit told her were in the truck. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kalb" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MetLife, alleging that MetLife abused its discretion in denying her claim to receive the proceeds of her late husband's life insurance policy under an employee-benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to MetLife. The court concluded based on the evidence - the 1991 form, the husband's will, and the November 2010 form - that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in determining that the husband's son, rather than plaintiff, was the beneficiary of the life insurance proceeds. Even assuming that the substantial-compliance doctrine was available to federal courts in the interpleader context, the court would not extend it to the circumstances presented here. Where an ERISA plan administrator is given discretion under the plan to determine eligibility for benefits, the doctrine does not deprive the administrator from requiring strict compliance with the terms of the plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hall v. Metropolitan Life Ins., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography (Count 1) and knowingly possessing child pornography (Count 2). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in denying defendant's motion to suppress without a hearing where defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in such publicly shared files (LimeWare file-sharing software) and could not invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment; because the jury specifically found defendant guilty based on different facts and images for each count, the jury did not convict defendant of receiving and distributing the same images that he was also found to have possessed, and thus no double jeopardy violation occurred; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of both counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law