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

Petitioner and her husband, natives of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that while in China, government family-planning officials forced her to abort her second pregnancy under China's one-child policy. The court held that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The IJ engaged in impermissible speculation and improperly relied on a minor inconsistency. As such, the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner did not establish past persecution. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zhang, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

This case concerned a dispute involving certain equipment Dakota purchased from the Kloster division of Tromley. On appeal, Tromley appealed the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. Because the arbitration provision was not readily available and because Dakota did not have a reasonable opportunity to reject it, Tromley could not establish the necessary consent to bind Dakota to that provision. Further, the emails exchanged between Dakota and Tromley in June and July 2010 did not constitute an addendum to their agreement which successfully incorporated the arbitration agreement where the court could not say that the parties mutually assented to modify their agreement to include the provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dakota Foundry, Inc. v. Tromley Industrial Holding" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. The court concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in concluding that defendant was inadmissible because substantial evidence supported the finding that he has admitted to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, a law of the United States related to controlled substances. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements where defendant was not in custody at the time the statements at issue were made to the law enforcement agent; the district court correctly determined that the facts in evidence did not warrant duress or coercion instructions because defendant had various opportunities to seek help over many hours and in many places but elected not to do so; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the jury was not obligated to credit defendant's testimony; and the district court did not commit clear error or otherwise abused its discretion in denying safety valve relief based on defendant's statements before and during trial where defendant failed to provide completely and truthfully all of the evidence and information he had concerning the offense. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the validity of his guilty plea to drug and firearm offenses. The court concluded that defendant had not shown a reasonable probability that he would have declined to plead guilty, relinquished the substantial benefits of his plea agreement, and insisted on proceeding to trial on all three original counts of the indictment had the court accurately advised him of the elements of the 18 U.S.C. 924 violation charged in Count Two. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to relief and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order denying sanctions against the Bank. Although the evidence suggested that the Bank could have been aware of debtor's personal bankruptcy filing, there was no evidence that the Bank had knowledge of the Assignment and the purported transfer of the LLC's assets to him. The replevin action filed by the Bank did not name debtor, individually, and sought only to repossess equipment owned by the LLC in which the Bank had a properly perfected security interest. Consequently, there could be no knowing or deliberate conduct attributed to the Bank in its conduct to enforce its lien against the collateral it believed was owned by the LLC. Absent a showing that the Bank was aware of the Assignment, a willful stay violation could not be found. Because a finding that there has been a willful violation of the automatic stay was a prerequisite to an award of sanctions, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of sanctions. View "Carter, Jr., et al. v. First National Bank of Crosset" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 151 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of burglary in the first degree in Indian country. The court concluded that, based on the violent home invasion and physical attack, as well as defendant's individual history, the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Downwind" on Justia Law

Branden Mueller filed a complaint against BCI with the DOE alleging that BCI had terminated him after he complained about not being paid prevailing wages as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115. BCI subsequently petitioned for review of the Secretary's order reinstating Mueller with back pay. The court concluded that BCI was deprived of its due process rights because it was never afforded a hearing and because the post-deprivation procedures available under section 1553 of the ARRA did not provide an opportunity for BCI to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses. Therefore, the court granted the petition and vacated the order. View "Business Communications v. U.S. Dept. of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant to recover on a promissory note. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court concluded that, construing the evidence most favorably to plaintiffs, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the primary purpose of the loan was consumer or non-consumer in nature. The district court correctly declined to create a de minimus exception to the no notice rule. The court reversed and remanded. View "Crozier, et al. v. Wint" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of her motion for judgment on the record, affirming Liberty's termination of long-term disability benefits and dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. The policy provided that an employee was not disabled if the employee was capable of performing any occupation for which he or she was reasonably fitted. The court concluded that Liberty did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff was reasonably fitted to perform the occupation of ambulance/emergency service dispatcher. Therefore, the record reflected that Liberty's decision to terminate benefits was supported by substantial evidence and thus did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gerhardt v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., et al." on Justia Law