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

Defendant appealed her sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. The district court considered defendant's struggles with addiction and her rehabilitation, and the court was satisfied that the district court acted within its wide range of discretion by sentencing her at the bottom of her guideline range. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance, refusing credit for her time spent in a halfway house under 18 U.S.C. 3585(b) where she was not subject to the Bureau of Prisons' control, and sentencing defendant to 87 months. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Parris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and other union members filed suit against US Foods and the Union for breach of duty of fair representation in a hybrid action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 1985. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Union. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff's claim was time-barred because the claim accrued when plaintiff filed a charge against the Union with the NLRB. Plaintiff's claim accrued on that date when he should reasonably have known of the Union's alleged breach. View "Becker, et al. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a police detective used excessive force when arresting him for disorderly conduct. On appeal, the detective appealed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his official capacity claims where plaintiff was unable to introduce evidence adequate to support such claims; the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the question concerning whether the officers "could have just left the scene;" the district court did not commit plain error by allowing plaintiff to elicit testimony regarding alternative courses of action; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the use of excessive force by using a modified version of instruction 4.40 from the Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions. View "Retz v. Seaton" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged by a dog sniff where seven or eight minutes had passed from the time the officer issued a written warning until the dog indicated the presence of drugs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate that his attorney's performance was deficient; counsel made a reasoned decision to stipulate the facts; and counsel acted to minimize the extent of defendant's exposure to a role enhancement. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by applying a three level enhancement to defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 for his role as a manager or supervisor of an offense that involved five or more participants. Further, the district court did not err in denying an offense-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief and proposed a plan to pay nondischargeable state and federal tax debts before other unsecured creditors. The bankruptcy court rejected the plan and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Applying the four-part test for unfair discrimination in In re Leser, the court concluded that the plan unfairly discriminated against other unsecured creditors, leaving the unsecured creditors with little or nothing. The court rejected debtors' argument that their post-petition tax preparation fees should be treated as pre-confirmation legal fees or trustee administration fees where debtors did not file their pre-petition tax returns on time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Copeland, et al. v. Fink" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit identity theft and wire fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, which stemmed from his involvement in a mortgage-fraud scheme that utilized a straw-buyer's identity. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a reasonable juror could draw the inference that the information the conspirators agreed to use was sufficient to identify a specific individual because two creditors actually were able to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Foster" on Justia Law

Plaintiff suffered severe injuries while working for an independent contractor that provided industrial cleaning services to Conopco. Plaintiff, injured while cleaning a large tank, filed suit against Conopco, alleging negligence based on a variety of Conopco's alleged acts and omissions. The court concluded that the district court properly granted Conopco's motion for summary judgment where Conopco owed plaintiff no duty to act with ordinary reasonable care where Conopco did not retain sufficient control over the jobsite or over the independent contractor's employees. Further, Conopco did not voluntarily assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to defendant. Because plaintiff has not shown that Conopco retained control over the jobsite or the manner of plaintiff's performance, Conopco had no duty to warn plaintiff of potential dangers surrounding the tank. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Spaulding v. Conopco" on Justia Law

After CIC denied the Archdiocese's demand for secondary excess carrier coverage, CIC filed suit seeking a declaration that its policy did not provide coverage for the underlying wrongful death litigation. On appeal, the Archdiocese challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of CIC. The court concluded, under Gibson v. Brewer, that the Archdiocese did not affirmatively establish that it was legally liable for the conduct alleged in the wrongful death claim and the court concluded that the Archdiocese was not entitled to indemnity coverage under CIC's policy. The court rejected the Archdiocese's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Chicago Ins. Co. v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, petitioned for a writ of mandamus of prohibition directed to the district court in an underlying civil action concerning Missouri's method for carrying out the death penalty. A three-judge panel of the court granted a writ with respect to discovery of the identity of the physician at issue, but denied a writ as to discovery of the identities of the pharmacy at issue and the laboratory at issue. On rehearing en banc, the court concluded that a writ should issue to vacate the orders requiring discovery of all three identities. It was clear and indisputable that the discovery ordered by the district court was not relevant to any claim that should survive a motion to dismiss and that the Director had no other adequate means to attain the relief he desired. Although denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily was not appealable, a writ of mandamus to correct an erroneous denial could be warranted in extraordinary circumstances where continued litigation would have significant unwarranted consequences. Discovery orders likewise were not ordinarily appealable, but mandamus could issue in extraordinarily circumstances to forbid discovery of irrelevant information where discovery would be oppressive and interfere with important state interests. These propositions taken together, along with the availability of alternative means for the Director to attain relief, lead the court to conclude that a writ should issue. View "In re: George Lombardi" on Justia Law