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

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in imposing an enhancement for 37 firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1) and in imposing an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because defendant was an accomplice to "another felony offense," commercial burglary, during the course of which firearms were found and taken. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vega" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting an upward departure under U.S.S.G. 4A1.3(a) where a category VI criminal history under-represented defendant's criminal history and where the district court properly considered defendant's long history of committing assaults. The court also concluded that there was no reversible error where the district court's thorough explanation during the sentencing hearing negated any prejudice and fulfilled the purposes of the written-reasons requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Outlaw" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for 44 counts of fraudulent behavior relating to theft of government funds, filing of their personal taxes, and actions they took as paid tax preparers. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; the district court did not plainly err by joining defendants for trial; the district court did not err in excluding expert witnesses for the defense; taken as a whole, the district court's instructions "fairly and adequately" submitted the issue of good faith to the jury and it was not error to reject defendants' proffered good faith instruction; and the district court did not err in calculating restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy against two children, appealed the denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to find support in the record to overcome the presumption that he was competent to stand trial and represent himself; the state court did not unreasonably apply federal law where it identified the correct standard for competency and pointed to facts, testimony, and evidence that reasonably demonstrated that petitioner met that standard; the district court did not err because it failed to consider whether petitioner was competent to waive counsel under the "new standard" set forth in Indiana v. Edwards; even if Edwards was retroactively applicable to this case, it did not change the outcome here; and the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wright v. Bowersox" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motion to appoint counsel to represent him in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court joined its sister circuits and held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding was not immediately appealable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final order and it was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. View "Pena-Calleja v. Ring" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court concluded that, even if it was error for the government to admit defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda "incriminate myself" statement as part of the government's case-in-chief, it was certainly not an error that was clear or obvious under current law; the district court did not plainly err when it failed to sua sponte strike the testimony of a law enforcement agent or the closing argument reference to the statement by the government; the district court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte strike the government's closing argument comment about defendant's election not to testify; and the court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs ("Parents") filed suit against Educators seeking a declaratory judgment that the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206(f)(1), violated the Equal Protection Clause and an injunction transferring their children to another school district. The court concluded that Parents' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because the Arkansas General Assembly enacted the Public School Choice Act of 2013, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-1901 et seq., which repealed the 1989 Act in its entirety. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss. View "Teague, et al. v. Arkansas Board of Education, et al." on Justia Law

After the district court awarded plaintiff and her husband damages for an injury she sustained as a result of a clothing rack breaking free from a wall at Dillard's department store and striking her in the shoulder, Dillard's appealed. The court affirmed plaintiff's award but vacated the husband's loss of consortium award. On remand, the district court reduced the husband's award. Both parties subsequently appealed. The court concluded that the "heavy lifting and adjustment" that plaintiff performed in order to help her husband, who is a quadriplegic, before her shoulder injury was encompassed by the notion of consortium under Missouri law; there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the specific award amount; and, although the district court did not employ any mathematical analysis to arrive at its new consortium award amount, the court did not believe that a seventy-five percent reduction in the award based on the limited services that plaintiff could no longer perform was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kingman, et al. v. Dillards, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Applying a deferential standard of review, the court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that plaintiff did not meet the first element of Listing 12.05C for mental retardation - having a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ score of 60-70. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's condition did not medically equal Listing 12.05C. View "Phillips v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant Calhoun appealed her conviction of two counts of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft and making false statements to investigators. Calhoun's convictions stemmed from her purchase of several "black market" airline tickets from Defendant Ross. Ross appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, and aggravated identity fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Calhoun; the district court committed no prejudicial abuse of discretion in not sua sponte excluding an inspector's testimony; and the court rejected Calhoun's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also concluded that the district court's finding that the fraud loss exceeded $1,000,000 was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not err in imposing a 6-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving more than 250 or more victims under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C); and the district court did not err in imposing a 2-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Calhoun" on Justia Law