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

Plaintiff filed suit against the officer who restrained him while executing a search warrant. Even assuming without deciding that the officer recklessly disregarded the misleading effect that omitting the facts at issue would have on the judge's probable cause determination, the officer was still entitled to qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence submitted to the judge would have been sufficient to support a probable cause finding even if the officer's oral affidavit had included the omitted facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer. View "Block v. Dupic" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his revocation of supervised release and sentence after pleading guilty to larceny in Indian country. Defendant was resentenced to a term of fifteen months' imprisonment for the original larceny offense. The court concluded that the district court imposed a term within the maximum authorized by law, two years' imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Decoteau" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable where the district court had wide latitude to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. The court also concluded that no error by trial counsel was apparent on the current record and there appeared to be no plain miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Samaniego-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release after he beat up his girlfriend. The district court concluded that defendant committed three violations of Iowa law: false imprisonment, domestic abuse assault, and first-degree harassment. The court concluded that the physical evidence strongly corroborated the girlfriend's version of events and the district court was entitled to find her credible. The court rejected defendant's argument to the extent that an absence of state charges demonstrated the falsity of the girlfriend's position where the absence of a prosecution did not logically refute the district court's factual finding that an offense occurred in violation of the conditions of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Frosch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of a revocation sentence based on her numerous prior violations. The court held that as a statutory and procedural matter, a revocation sentence may not be based on disputed, unproven allegations in the probation officer's reports. In this instance, however, it was clear from the record that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors listed in section 3583(e) and based defendant's sentence solely on undisputed facts. Although the district court could have offered a more detailed and precise explanation of the reference to the "reasons" in the adjustment report, or omitted the reference, the court detected no procedural error under Gall v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the revocation sentence. View "United States v. Richey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against his parole officer, alleging that the officer falsely reported that plaintiff failed to report to see him as required by the terms of plaintiff's parole. The court concluded that the district court correctly followed circuit precedent in dismissing plaintiff's claim in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey and this court's application of Heck in Entzi v. Redmann. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court denied plaintiff's motion for service of the appeal as moot. View "Newmy, Sr. v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree felony murder, challenged the district court's dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that, when the state post-conviction was no longer pending, petitioner waited another 363 days to file her federal petition for federal habeas corpus, making her current habeas petition untimely. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for habeas corpus relief. View "Dixon v. Wachtendorf" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a national and citizen of Kenya, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from an IJ's order concluding that she was removable and denying her petition for adjustment of status. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by denying her motion to suppress her I-9 forms and her Hutchison Community College (HCC) applications. The court concluded that INA 274A(b)(5) allows the admission of I-9 forms into evidence in removal proceedings; absent an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment or other liberty which transgresses the fundamental fairness of the removal proceedings or affects the probative value of the evidence obtained, the exclusionary rule is not available in the removal context to remedy a mere statutory violation of Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g; and, therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Downs v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Amana seeks reversal of the district court's grant of summary judgment to Excel where the district court concluded that Amana failed to establish that Excel breached a duty of care to Amana in a design-certification letter that it supplied to the firm that Amana hired to construct an anaerobic digester. The court concluded that Amana could not establish that it justifiably relied on any statements from Excel and its engineer concerning the digester outputs because no relevant representations exist on which to rely; Excel never reviewed the final design or substrate proposal and therefore made no representations as to the feasibility of that design; and the district court correctly concluded that Amana could not have justifiably relied on Excel's review of the initial GHD design as a basis for liability due to the failure of a materially different design and utilization. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Amana Society, Inc., et al. v. Excel Engineering, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a sign electrician, was injured when he fell through the canopy of a storefront. Plaintiff filed suit against the owner of the shopping center and others. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's fifth motion to amend his complaint; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when plaintiff filed his motion over three months past the deadline; the exception to the "open and obvious" rule did not apply in this case; plaintiff was an independent contractor; the hazards plaintiffs encountered were open, obvious, and known to him before he ascended the roof and undertook the risk of falling; and the owner had no duty to warn plaintiff of an obvious hazard integral to his work. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show that the owner owed him a duty. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the owner. View "Pinson v. 45 Development, et al." on Justia Law