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

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for misapplication of funds from an Indian tribal organization and aiding and abetting in violation of section 18 U.S.C. 1163 and 2. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal where a reasonable jury could find that she acted knowingly and willfully in violating section 1163. The district court did not abuse its discretion in or clearly err in failing to grant defendant a downward departure for extraordinary physical impairments under U.S.S.G. 5H1.4 and failing to adequately consider her need for medical care and grant her a variance. Defendant's health care problems could be easily managed by the Bureau of Prisons. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in declining to vary downward based on defendant's health problems under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(D). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Wanna" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm in Missouri state court, seeking to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under plaintiff's policy with State Farm (the Pontiac policy). State Farm removed to district court based on diversity of citizenship and then the district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the State Farm policy unambiguously prohibited stacking UIM coverage limits. Plaintiff's argument was foreclosed in Daughhetee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. where the court affirmed the lower court's determination that the language in an identical State Farm automobile policy unambiguously precluded policy stacking of UIM coverage limits under Missouri law. View "Crain v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming malicious prosecution and violations of his civil rights. After plaintiff's attorney failed to comply with discovery deadlines, the district court dismissed plaintiff's suit with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failures to comply with a court order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that, in these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to impose the "ultimate sanction" of dismissal with prejudice without first considering the viability of lesser sanctions. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Bergstrom v. Sgt. Michelle Frascone, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the the BIA's order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Determining that it had jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law, the court concluded that the IJ did not commit procedural error in excluding the testimony of petitioner's son and daughter where the testimony was cumulative and unnecessary. The court also concluded that the court need not consider whether the IJ erred in not qualifying more of petitioner's expert's testimony because petitioner was unable to show prejudice. Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny petitioner relief based on her prior sham marriage. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Zeah v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Debtor moved for sanctions after Stephen Wyse, representing on of debtor's creditors, filed suit in state court seeking in part to recover a debt discharged by debtor in bankruptcy. Wyse and his client, Frank Williams, failed to appear in opposition and the bankruptcy court granted the motion. Wyse and Williams subsequently appealed the orders granting in part their first motion for relief and denying the second motion for rehearing or relief. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding a portion of the debt Williams sought to collect in the state court action was debtor's pre-conversion debt. The bankruptcy court maintained the order of sanctions against Wyse for seeking to collect the portion of the $76,200 derived from debtor's pre-conversion debt to Williams, not for seeking to collect the post-discharge debts in the state court action. The bankruptcy court was perfectly within its discretion to impose the sanction. Given William's failure to introduce any other evidence regarding the specific amount of money he provided to debtor on April 19, 2010, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding Williams had not proven the exact amount of post-conversion debt debtor had incurred on that date. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second motion for relief brought solely to raise neglected arguments in the first motion for relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Williams, et al. v. King" on Justia Law

GoJet petitioned for review of the FAA Acting Administrator's ruling that GoJet violated FAA regulations when it failed to make a logbook entry and to remove a gear pin. GoJet argued that it did not violate 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a) and 121.153(a)(2) by carelessly or recklessly operating an unairworthy airplane, and procedural error. The court concluded that the Administrator did not err in determining that GoJet violated section 121.153(a)(2) where the type-certificate nonconformity in this case - inoperable landing gear - was so clearly related to safe operation of the airplane that a finding that the airplane was not airworthy was clearly warranted based solely on this nonconformity. The court also concluded that the Administrator did not err in crediting an FAA Inspector's testimony regarding potential danger and finding that GoJet violated section 91.13(a). The Administrator's decision that GoJet failed to establish extraordinary circumstances was not arbitrary or capricious. A violation of section 91.13(a) did not require proof of actual danger to lives or property; the potential for danger was enough. Finally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in terminating the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program self-disclosure proceeding and commencing a civil penalty action. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "GoJet Airlines v. FAA" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of methamphetamine. The truck defendant was driving was towing a trailer without registration information, lacked a visible license plate, and had been reported stolen. Further, the truck and trailer had left a residence where the police suspected the presence of stolen trailers. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress the drugs, cash, and other items that the trooper found in his truck where the trooper had probable cause to search the truck and the trooper did not need a warrant to search the truck under the automobile exception; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to judgment of acquittal where the government presented ample evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed the methamphetamine in the truck and that he intended to distribute the methamphetamine; and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial upon the sufficiency of the evidence and where the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give defendant's "mere presence" instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vore" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The court concluded that the record was clear that defendant withdrew his objections to the factual statements in the PSR, which permitted the district court to rely upon them to find that the enhancement was applicable. Because the objections were withdrawn, the district court did not err in relying on the factual statements set forth in the PSR to find that the four-level enhancement applied. View "United States v. Bowers" on Justia Law

Claimant sought the return of $154,853.00 in U.S. currency seized during a traffic stop. On appeal, claimant challenged the district court's grant of the government's motion to strike his verified claim and amended verified claim, its order forfeiting the currency, and its denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking claimant's verified complaint where his blanket assertions did not sufficiently identify his interest in the currency; the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that claimant failed to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(5) as it pertained to $150.353.00 in which claimant claimed a possessory interest as bailee; the district court abused its discretion in striking claimant's amended verified claim as to the remaining $4,500 for failure to adequately respond to the special interrogatories when no special interrogatories were necessary to determine standing; and, on remand, the district court can address claimant's constitutional claims when it considers his motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Marcus" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to six counts related to burglary of and distribution of controlled substances. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court concluded that plaintiff could not withdraw his guilty plea based upon his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to assert any objections to counsel's performance at his change of plea hearing and where he understood his possible punishment; the district court did not abuse its discretion either in refusing to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea or by denying an evidentiary hearing; and the district court did not commit plain error during the Rule 11 plea colloquy. View "United States v. Haubrich" on Justia Law