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

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact with a child. At issue was whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to the government's alleged breach of the plea agreement. Determining that the court had jurisdiction to consider the appeal under the separate document requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), the court concluded that, even assuming that defendant could show that his counsel's performance at sentencing was deficient, he failed to adequately allege that he was prejudiced. Accordingly, the district court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jeffries v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud. On appeal, the government challenged defendant's sentence as substantively unreasonable and defendant cross-appealed, challenging her convictions. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that defendant knowingly and intentionally joined in an agreement to defraud Best Buy; the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant willfully committed affirmative acts constituting tax evasion and that a tax deficiency resulted; the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's tax fraud conspiracy since the evidence showed that she knowingly and intentionally entered an agreement with her husband to evade taxes and that she took an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; the evidence at trial was not "materially different" from the facts in the indictment and, therefore, no variance occurred and the district court did not err in denying her motion for acquittal on that basis; the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a new trial based on admission of Government Exhibit 17. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants convictions. In regards to defendant's sentence, the court remanded for the district court to provide a fuller explanation of the sentence. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of charges stemming from a series of attempted robberies and the robbery of an armored car service. Defendants appealed their convictions and Defendant Gilbert appealed his sentence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the existence of a single conspiracy; the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the cross-examination of Defendant Platt regarding his knowledge of a murder committed by the armored car driver because there was no prejudice; the court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant Person's motion to suppress eyewitness identification where the photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive; and the district court did not clearly err by applying a two-level enhancement for abuse of trust under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3 because Gilbert used his special knowledge or access to facilitate or conceal the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Gilbert" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a search that led to his arrest for drug and firearm possession charges, and motion for a hearing to challenge the truthfulness of the factual statements in the application for the search warrant. The court agreed with the district court that many of defendant's challenges highlight, at most, minor discrepancies or omissions that do not establish deliberate or reckless falsehood. Even for those few instances where the district court agreed with defendant that the affidavit contained a misrepresentation, defendant provided no evidence suggesting that the misrepresentations were deliberate or reckless. Finally, even if the court were to assume the challenged affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods, defendant's arguments for a Franks v. Delaware hearing would still fail because the affidavit established probable cause even absent any misrepresentations and including the omitted information at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to a charge of failing to update his registration after he moved from Missouri to the Philippines under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 16911 et seq. On appeal, he challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court reversed, concluding that the text of SORNA did not extend registration requirements to defendant's situation where Missouri was not a "jurisdiction involved" after defendant changed his residence to somewhere in the Philippines and defendant was not required by the federal statute to update the Missouri registry. View "United States v. Lunsford" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences stemming from drug-related charges. Defendant's counsel raised numerous issues on appeal and defendant raised additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief. The court addressed arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing issues, challenges to the conspiracy conviction, and additional issues raised pro se. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against St. Louis police officers for, inter alia, arresting her on false charges and conspiring to hide it. The court concluded that the record was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find that Defendants Harris and Isshawn-O'Quinn participated in a section 1983 conspiracy to violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights by, inter alia, conspiring with other officers to prevent plaintiff from filing a section 1983 action following her false arrest. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity to these defendants. The court dismissed the appeal by the municipal defendants for lack of jurisdiction where the issues raised by these defendants were not inextricably intertwined with the question of qualified immunity. View "S.L. v. Board of Police Commissioners, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a detective submitted a false statement of probable cause to secure a warrant for his arrest and that an assistant county attorney approved the warrant application even though it lacked probable cause. The detective sought a warrant for plaintiff's arrest, alleging that he had knowingly violated the state registration requirements for predatory offenders or intentionally provided false information. In light of the facts known to the detective when he applied for the warrant and the ambiguity of the statutory language, the court could not say that no reasonably competent officer would have applied for an arrest warrant. Accordingly, the court concluded that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity where the belief that probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff for failing to register his Belize address as his primary address - even if that belief was mistaken - was objectively reasonable. Even if no probable cause existed to support the warrant for plaintiff's arrest, the attorney was nonetheless entitled to absolute immunity because his acts in reviewing and approving the complaint against plaintiff were taken to initiate the criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Saterdalen v. Spencer, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the father, sought the return of his children to Peru under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq. The district court found that petitioner's violent temper and inability to cope with the prospect of losing custody of the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm were they returned to Peru. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's determination and respondent, the mother, cross-appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an expert's testimony that several factors indicated that returning the children to Peru would expose them to a high risk of harm where the factual basis for the expert's testimony was sufficient. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to return the children to Peru where petitioner did not make a specific proposal for appropriate undertakings before the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. View "Acosta v. Acosta, et al." on Justia Law

Novus appealed the district court's refusal to enforce a non-compete clause against a franchisee as part of a preliminary injunction which prohibited the franchisee from using Novus's marks and products in his automotive glass repair business. The court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over Novus's claim that the district court erred in dismissing defendant's company for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed that part of the appeal. The court also concluded that it did not have appellate jurisdiction over Novus's appeal of the district court's order granting defendant an additional sixty days to file and answer and, therefore, dismissed this part of the appeal. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Novus failed to show irreparable harm under the particular facts involved in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction order. View "Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson" on Justia Law