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

Defendant pled guilty to distributing a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and subsequently appealed the district court's imposition of his sentence after remand. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant a two-level minor-role adjustment where it correctly concluded that a U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 reduction was not applicable; the law-of-the-case doctrine did not preclude the district court from imposing the $10,000 fine; the sentence was substantively reasonable; and there were no additional nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and denied the motion for appointment of new counsel. View "United States v. Lara" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after she was sexually assaulted by a City policy officer. The officer was charged with first degree sexual assault and subsequently terminated from the police force. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer, based on the evidence, that the City's custom of ignoring violent misconduct and failing to supervise or discipline officers was a moving force behind the officer's assault on plaintiff. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. City of Marianna, AR" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking interest on benefits she received under an Accidental Death and Dismemberment (ADD) insurance policy issued by Hartford. The parties disagreed on whether Tennessee law or Missouri law applied. Plaintiff did not dispute Hartford's argument that under Missouri law and the policy language, Hartford paid the benefit to her when it was payable. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to interest under Missouri law. Assuming Tennessee law applied, the court relied on Performance Sys., Inc. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, to conclude that the Tennessee Supreme Court would likely construe "due" in Tenn. Code Ann. 7-14-109(b) to mean the time of payment designated in the policy, not the date of loss. In this instance, Hartford paid the benefit to plaintiff within the time of payment designated in the policy and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to interest under subsection (b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williamson v. Hartford Life & Accident, etc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff contended that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the "extreme sanction" of dismissing his case with prejudice where the record showed neither "intentional delays" nor "contumacious conduct" on his part. The court concluded, based on the circumstances, that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance and therefore erred in dismissing the case with prejudice and denying the motion to reconsider. The record showed no evidence of why the district court could not have accommodated its schedule, defendant's schedule, and plaintiff's schedule in continuing the case to a later date and plaintiff had a good basis for a continuance. View "DiMercurio v. Malcom" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her former employer and others after she was terminated, alleging federal claims of discrimination based on her gender, religion, and disability, as well as defamation under state law. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on the remaining claims that were not dismissed. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claims to Trumann Health where, under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, Trumann Health articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing her and plaintiff did not show other similarly situated employees were more favorably treated; the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's libel claims against her co-workers; and Trumann Health could not be liable for defamation because plaintiff premised Trumann Health's liability upon the individual defendants' liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Evance v. Trumann Health Services, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the University and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her employment was terminated for gross misconduct. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on her due process violation and gender discrimination claims. The court concluded that, assuming plaintiff had a property interest in her continued employment, her due process claim failed because she received all of the process that she was due; regardless of whether defendants deprived plaintiff of a liberty interest in her reputation, she could not establish a due process violation because she did not sufficiently, if at all, request a name-clearing hearing; the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to show direct evidence of discrimination or that defendants' explanation for terminating her was a pretext for gender discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Floyd-Gimon v. University of Arkansas, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receiving child pornography and possessing child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a change of venue where the district court considered Rule 18 factors and where the security concerns from holding the trial in Jonesboro outweighed the inconvenience of holding the trial in Little Rock; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial where the evidence found on the laptop was sufficient to establish that defendant was the person who downloaded the child pornography and that the files containing child pornography were knowingly downloaded and saved in the laptop's permanent memory; there was no unfair prejudice in the publication of the video clips at issue to the jury; there was no error in applying a five-level enhancement; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vary even further downward. View "United States v. Worthey" on Justia Law

Swift sued its lawyers alleging malpractice for failing to file a timely appeal of an adverse judgment in an Arkansas state court action. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the lawyers where there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the discovery of disputes or in instructing the jury on spoliation; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay statements and the statement of a certain witness; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting demonstrative animation evidence. Accordingly, the Arkansas appellate courts would not have reversed the jury's verdict and, therefore, the lawyers' failure to file a timely appeal did not proximately cause harm to Swift. View "Swift Transportation Co., et al. v. Angulo, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with bank robbery and using and carrying a firearm during a bank robbery, he was transferred from a Kansas correctional facility, where he was imprisoned on state charges, to the District of Nebraska to appear on the federal charges. The district court determined that the transfer violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), 18 U.S.C. app. 2 section 1, et seq. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's dismissal of the federal indictment without prejudice. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment without prejudice where defendant had not alleged bad faith by the government or a "pattern of negligence" and where defendant presented no evidence, other than his own statements, that he would suffer prejudice simply as a result of uncertainties if he was reprosecuted. View "United States v. Macomber" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to reentering the United States illegally after being deported for an aggravated felony conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because defendant had been convicted of a crime of violence previously. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, concluding that defendant's Nebraska conviction for manslaughter was not a conviction for a crime of violence within the meaning of the applicable Guideline. On remand, the district court may apply further the modified categorical approach as may be appropriate where Nebraska's manslaughter offense was broader than its generic federal counterpart. View "United States v. Roblero-Ramirez" on Justia Law