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

An ALJ denied plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits, concluding that she was not disabled because there were jobs she could have performed during the relevant period. The Appeals Council then denied review and plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's final decision to the district court. In this appeal, the government challenged the district court's reversal of the Commissioner's decision. The court reversed and affirmed the Commissioner's final decision, concluding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Turpin v. Colvin" on Justia Law

The Government filed civil forfeiture actions against five properties alleging that they were used to manufacture illegal drugs or were purchased with proceeds from illegal drug sales. Claimants filed claims to the defendant properties. The district court necessarily had to construe both Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(4)(b)(i)-(ii) (the direct notice requirements) and Supplemental Rule G4(b)(v) (the actual notice exception) in order to determine what proper notice was required in this case. Therefore, the court reviewed de novo the district court's decision to strike the claims where that decision rested on an interpretation of the civil forfeiture notice provisions. The court concluded that claimants' verified claim was not untimely where the government did not comply with the notice regime laid out in Supplemental Rule G. The court also concluded that to impute actual notice on the basis of a communication to the government by an attorney (an email) who at the time did not represent them would work a serious injustice and raise troubling constitutional concerns. Accordingly, the court vacated the forfeiture judgments, reversed the district court's order striking two of claimants' claims as untimely, and remanded for a merits determination on the claims to the properties. View "United States v. Buczkowski, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his three convictions in a murder-for-hire case; denial of a belated motion to withdraw his guilty plea in a user-in-possession case; and both sentences. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial or new trial when the jurors reported that "words were exchanged" with members of defendant's family where the district court, among other things, recognized the issues raised by the jurors' expression of concern and involved counsel in determining how to investigate the alleged misconduct. The district court concluded that the jurors' concerns had been alleviated and would not prejudice their ability to render an unbiased decision. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for attempted obstruction of justice, attempted murder of a witness, and use of a telephone in the commission of murder for hire. The court rejected the district court's evidentiary rulings; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected defendant's theory-of-defense instruction and two proposed mistake-of-fact instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw the plea; and defendant's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris-Thompson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against Charter in Missouri state court, alleging that Charter violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.10 et seq., and breached its contract with the class members. Plaintiffs alleged that Charter had provided the class members with Internet modems that were incapable of operating at the speed that Charter had promised. Charter removed to federal court. The court concluded that Charter met its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeded the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005's (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), $5 million jurisdictional threshold. The court also concluded that, under Missouri law, plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support pecuniary loss. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Grawitch, et al. v. Charter Communication" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate that petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective under the Strickland and Frye standards for failing to advise petitioner that the government had expressed an interest as to whether he was willing to cooperate against other individuals. The district court correctly concluded that the government never extended petitioner a formal plea offer because the government merely expressed an interest in negotiating. Consequently, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. Because petitioner did not obtain a certificate of appealability on his remaining claims, the court did not consider them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ramirez v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a final order of removal entered by the BIA. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determinations, affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner did not provide credible testimony that he entered the United States by car in 2004, and that petitioner was removable because he failed to prove he had been inspected and admitted as he claimed. The I-213 provided strong evidence that petitioner entered the United States afoot without inspection or admission. The IJ and BIA also articulated specific reasons to discredit petitioner's testimony based on discrepancies and contradictions. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Diaz-Perez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Farm Credit had a security interest in corn delivered to Cargill and filed suit against Cargill in replevin for the corn. The district court concluded that Farm Credit's security interest under the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 1631(e), entitled it to proceeds from the corn delivered to Cargill. The court concluded that Cargill did not dispute that Farm Credit complied with the FSA. To the extent that the U.C.C. governs priority disputes as a foundation for the FSA, Cargill's argument failed because U.C.C. 9-404 does not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Farm Credit. View "Farm Credit Serv. v. Cargill, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., against H&R Block, alleging that H&R Block must compensate tax professionals for the time spent completing twenty-four hours of rehire training. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of H&R Block, holding that the district court engaged in the appropriate inquiry when it considered whether, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, plaintiffs were employees or trainees when they completed rehire training. The court held that tax professionals were not employees of H&R Block when they completed rehire training where H&R Block received no immediate advantage from the rehire training completed by the tax professionals. The court found further support for this conclusion in the Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook. View "Petroski, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court erred by treating a prior drug conspiracy conviction and possession-with-intent-to-deliver conviction as separate qualifying predicate offenses. The court affirmed, concluding that, although the possession conviction was for conduct that occurred during the period of the conspiracy and was related to the object of the conspiracy, the possession offense was a discrete episode in a series of events. Accordingly, the two convictions were committed on occasions different from one another as required by 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). View "United States v. Melbie, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute at least 28 grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base. The court held that vehicular flight, as described by Michigan Code 257.602a(1), is a crime of violence, and is therefore a predicate offense for career-offender status under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court concluded, however, that there was a reasonable probability that defendant's sentence would have been lower had the district court not erred in concluding that defendant had sold drugs for ten years. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of defendant's request for a downward variance. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law