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

Petitioner, a former special forces member of the El Salvador military, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him withholding of removal. The court concluded that the IJ did not deprive petitioner of a fundamentally fair hearing where the IJ provided him an opportunity to examine the documents at issue and respond to them. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to show that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that he would be persecuted in El Salvador where, among other things, petitioner and his family were not harmed based on his former military membership. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Constanza-Martinez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Jordanian citizen, appealed the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for adjustment of status. Petitioner contended that the unpublished BIA decision in his case was not entitled to Chevron deference. The court need not address whether Chevron deference was required because the BIA decision could be affirmed under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. The court concluded that the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to adjustment of status was a persuasive interpretation of section 245(i) and was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 8 C.F.R. 245.10. Under the deference afforded by Skidmore and Auer v. Robbins, the court affirmed the judgment of the BIA and denied the petition for review. View "Mansour v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Empire Bank appealed from the bankruptcy court's order and judgment declaring that Arvest Bank's judicial lien was superior to the liens asserted by Empire Bank and directing judgment in favor of debtors on their preferential transfer claim against Empire Bank. The panel concluded that Arvest Bank and debtors failed to meet their burden of proof and the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the Empire Bank deed of trust was invalid for a lack of consideration; the "unsecured" language in the guaranty documents was true when they were executed and the status of the guaranties as unsecured changed when the deed of trust was signed but that change in the status of the guaranties was not a latent ambiguity in the Empire Bank deed of trust; the bankruptcy court erred in holding that a latent ambiguity existed where the Empire Bank deed of trust was subject to more than one interpretation; and, after addressing remaining arguments, the panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arvest Bank v. Empire Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against their insurer, American Bankers, after American Bankers denied plaintiffs' claim to recover for property damage under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy. Although plaintiffs filed a proof of loss for their undisputed claims, including the damage to their residence, they never filed a proof of loss for their disputed debris removal claim. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to file a proof of loss for their debris removal costs was a complete bar to recovery under the policy. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of American Bankers. View "Dickson, et al. v. American Bankers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

OMJP appealed from the district court's denial of its motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3). In Levaquin I, the court upheld a jury award in compensatory damages against OMJP for Achilles tendon injuries plaintiff suffered while taking OMJP's prescription antibiotic Levaquin. In this appeal, OMJP contended that the district court abused its discretion in denying OMJP relief under Rule (60)(b)(2) based on the delinquent and belated disclosure of an expert's calculation regarding the relative risk of Achilles tendon rupture to certain patients. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief based on OMJP's claim of "newly discovered evidence" where the evidence was merely cumulative or impeaching and OMJP had not demonstrated that it was probable it would produce a different result. In regards to OMJP's misconduct claim under Rule 60(b)(3), the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the lack of the expert's calculation did not prevent OMJP from mounting a vigorous defense and that any misconduct did not warrant a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to producing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, as well as the district court's exclusion of evidence that one of the minors involved in defendant's production of child pornography was emancipated at the time the photographs were taken. The court concluded that officers had sufficient grounds to detain defendant until the point at which they developed probable cause for an arrest. Therefore, the duration of the seizure was constitutionally reasonable and the district court correctly refused to suppress evidence based on the length of the encounter. Based on the positive field test of the contact lens case for methamphetamine and the drug dog's alert to defendant's car, the officers had probable cause to search the car. Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the cell phone belonging to the underage passenger and the evidence seized from the phone was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction. The court agreed with the district court that the minor's previous marriage and emancipation were not legal defense to a charge against defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Stringer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed or received pornography; the district court did abuse its discretion in admitting online conversations defendant had with others and admitting a disc containing pornographic images; the convictions did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to be free from double jeopardy where the charges were based on separate facts; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Manning" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CRST in state court alleging that CRST negligently failed to maintain his workers' compensation insurance coverage. CRST removed the case to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment to CRST. The court affirmed the district court's holding that plaintiff's action was barred by the applicable Missouri statute of limitations. View "Brown v. CRST Malone" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed. The court found no merit in defendant's claim that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was unconstitutionally vague because both the Supreme Court and this court's precedent have rejected this argument; the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by concluding that his two domestic violence convictions were committed on different occasions; and the application of the enhancement did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights where facts of a prior conviction need no be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on Almendarez-Torres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Arkansas Circuit Clerk, filed suit against Lenders, alleging that they used the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) to avoid paying recording fees on mortgage assignments and deprived Arkansas counties of revenue. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's exercise of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The court concluded that the district court properly found that plaintiff alleged a class action under CAFA and that the class for the illegal-exaction claim included all Arkansas taxpayers, and thus, properly exercised jurisdiction under CAFA; the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss or remand the state-law claims after dismissing the illegal-exaction class action claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain under Burford abstention; and the dismissal of the state law claims was appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Brown v. Mortgage Electronic, et al." on Justia Law