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

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of five counts including aggravated sexual abuse, interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and accessing child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his laptop because the private search exception applied to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual - in this case, the victim - not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official; officers had probable cause to believe the laptop contained contraband based on the victim's and his mother's statements about its internet history, as well as allegations of sexual abuse; the exigencies of the circumstances also demanded seizure; and defendant's statements were not fruit of the poisonous tree. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on Counts 1, 3, and 4, and the district court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for a new trial. Finally, the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in applying the U.S.S.G. 4B1.5(b) enhancement and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Goodale" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Prior to the petition, Collection Associates filed a collection suit against one of the debtors in Nebraska state court and obtained a judgment. On appeal, debtors challenged an order of the bankruptcy court denying their complaint to avoid and recover transfers of wages to Collection Associates. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment where 11 U.S.C. 547(c)(8) applied as a defense to this preference action because the amount sought to be recovered was less than $600. View "Pierce, et al. v. Collection Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his third revocation proceeding, arguing that the district judge should have recused from the proceeding. The court concluded that defendant's 36-month sentence did not establish the judge's partiality where the judge's expressed frustration with defendant did not establish partiality; the judge did not impermissibly utilize personal knowledge of disputed facts to impose defendant' sentence; and the judge did not commit plain error by not recusing sua sponte because neither ground asserted by defendant constituted error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the revocation sentence. View "United States v. Melton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Jackson County, Missouri and employees in its detention center. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his First Amendment claims. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the supervisor's removal of plaintiff from the trustee program in 2009 was motivated by the lawsuit he had filed against her in 2006; as to whether plaintiff would have been transferred from H module to D module but for his use of the grievance process; and as to whether two certain employees took adverse action against plaintiff by obstructing his access to the grievance process. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to defendants, remanding for further proceedings. View "Spencer v. Jackson County Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Metro, alleging that her supervisor had sexually harassed her in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Metro. The court concluded that the supervisor's alleged conduct was not so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment and, therefore, affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff presented genuine issues of fact as to whether the supervisor was motivated by sex and whether he intentionally and proximately caused her termination. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this quid pro quo harassment claim. View "McMiller v. Metro" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to rape and second-degree sexual abuse in Arkansas state court. After plaintiff petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, the district court dismissed the petition with prejudice but then granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the question of procedural default based on his ineffective-assistance of counsel claims. The court concluded that the COA was improvidently granted on the preliminary question of procedural default alone because plaintiff made no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on the merits. The court saw nothing in the record to support a debatable conclusion that but for counsel's alleged errors, plaintiff would have proceeded to trial. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Ward v. Hobb" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm recovered from his vehicle during a traffic stop. The court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated traffic laws warranting the stop of the vehicle and the court need not address any of the other exceptions to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of more than 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the district court's denial of a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 was not clear error; there was no procedural error in defendant's sentence where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the arguments defendant presented; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 108 months' imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Salazar-Aleman" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption. Debtor had filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and had claimed exempt, as a public assistance benefit under MO.REV.STAT. 513.430.1(10)(a), the portion of her 2012 federal income tax refund that was attributable to a child tax credit allowed under 26 U.S.C. 24. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption, concluding that the refundable portion of the child tax credit was not a public assistance benefit within the meaning of the statute and could not be claimed exempt under the statute. View "Hardy v. Fink" on Justia Law

Cab Drivers filed suit against the city challenging Ordinance section 76-73, which regulates the number of taxicab permits in the city. The city's stated purpose for the ordinance was insufficient demand for taxicabs. The court concluded that the ordinance was neither wholly arbitrary nor invidious. It is rationally related to a number of legitimate government purposes and Cab Drivers have failed to demonstrate that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the city. View "KC Taxi Cab Drivers, etc., et al. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri" on Justia Law