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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant possessed the firearm in connection with a felony methamphetamine possession offense and applying the four-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Holm" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision upholding the Commissioner's determination that he was not entitled to waiver of recovery of overpaid disability benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision where recovery of the overpayment did not defeat the purpose of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and where recovery of the overpayment was not against equity or good conscience because plaintiff's mere receipt of disability benefits after notifying the Commissioner of his work activity did not satisfy 20 C.F.R. 404.510a. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rodysill v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, found guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, appealed the denial of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Section 851(a) required the government to provide notice of the sentencing enhancement before trial, but also provided that clerical mistakes in the information may be amended at any time prior to the pronouncement of sentence. In this instance, the court concluded that, because the section 851 notice was adequate, petitioner failed to show that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the notice. The clerical error - which related to the federal district court in which petitioner was convicted - did not deprive petitioner of notice about which conviction the government intended to use, the enhancement of his sentence for which they were asking, or an opportunity to dispute the conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Espinoza v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's order granting Bank of America's motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims for rescission and statutory damages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that defendants' right to rescission had expired and that their rescission claim was time-barred under section 1635 because defendants notified Bank of America of their intent to rescind but failed to file a lawsuit within the three-year period. The court concluded, however, that defendants have offered evidence that Bank of America failed to deliver the TILA disclosures and notices. Therefore, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the failure to deliver the required documents. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Bank of America on defendants' counterclaim for rescission; vacated the grant of summary judgment to Bank of America on defendants' counterclaim for statutory damages; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of America v. Peterson, et al." on Justia Law

Citizens of the City filed suit against the quarry defendants in Missouri state court, asserting various state-law tort claims. The quarry defendants removed to federal district court and the district court issued an injunction prohibiting the citizens from pursuing their claims. The citizens appealed the district court's denial of their motion to remand to state court and its issuance of the injunction. The court concluded that the quarry defendants have not met their burden of establishing the district court's jurisdiction over the citizens' claims. Therefore, removal was improper and the district court erred in denying the motion to remand. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the motion to remand; vacated the order enjoining the citizens from pursuing their claims in any forum; and remanded with directions to remand the case to Missouri state court. View "Baker, et al. v. Martin Marietta Materials, et al." on Justia Law

LGI's bankruptcy trustee filed suit to recover payments to SDGE and SCE that LGI made for its clients, Buffets and Wendy's restaurants, as avoidable preferences under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 547(b). SDGE and SCE asserted the subsequent new value exception to preference liability pursuant to section 547(c)(4). The court held that, in three-party relationships where the debtor's preferential transfer to a third party benefits the debtor's primary creditor, new value could come from the primary creditor, even if the third party was a creditor in its own right and was the only defendant against whom the debtor had asserted a claim of preference liability. As section 547(b) makes voidable a transfer "for the benefit of a creditor," it both served the purposes of section 547 and honored the statute's text to construe "such creditor" in the section 547(c)(4) exception as including a creditor who benefited from the preferential transfer and subsequently replenished the bankruptcy estate with new value. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel correctly concluded that SDGE and SCE could each offset subsequent new value that Buffets or Wendy's paid to LGI for that utility's services, regardless of when those services were provided. The court directed the BAP to enter a modified judgment reducing SCE's preference liability based on the double-counting of two payments. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Stoebner v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Bahamas, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. The court concluded that petitioner's third-degree assault conviction in Minnesota constituted an aggravated felony. As an aggravated felon, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). Having held that 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) was susceptible to multiple interpretations, the court deferred to the BIA's reasonable construction that section 1182(h) relief was unavailable for any alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony after acquiring lawful permanent resident status, without regard to the manner in which such status was acquired. Finally, the court rejected petitioner's equal protection challenge to the BIA's construction of section 1182(h) where disagreements among the courts of appeal, or between an agency and one or more of the courts of appeal, would not by itself create an equal protection violation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Roberts v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine precursors. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress the physical evidence found after the stop of defendant's car where the officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop of defendant's vehicle considering the overtly-cautious driving, time of night, evasive maneuvers, and rash of recent burglaries. The court concluded that the public exception to Miranda v. Arizona applied to the officer's questions regarding what he might find in the vehicle because those questions were reasonably aimed at addressing the safety hazard posed by the manufacture of methamphetamine. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's admission of the statements at issue. View "United States v. Noonan" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with the intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the sentence imposed by the district court on the revocation of his second period of supervised release. The court concluded that, while it would have "simplified matters" if the district court had directly asked defendant if he admitted the violations, the district court did afford defendant an opportunity to speak after his attorney had conceded them and asked if defendant wanted "to address any of the issues about" the four violations of his release conditions. On the record, the court concluded that the district court did not err in revoking defendant's supervised release. Further, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in imposing a substantively reasonable sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the trafficking-in-firearms enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1. The court also concluded that the district court correctly calculated defendant's criminal history score by adding three points for his state conviction for simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Pepper" on Justia Law