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

Marcus Millsap was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), aiding and abetting attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Millsap was involved with the New Aryan Empire, a white-supremacist organization engaged in drug trafficking. He assisted the organization's president, Wesley Gullett, in drug operations and attempted to retaliate against Bruce Hurley, a police informant, by offering money to have him killed. Gullett attempted to kill Hurley but failed, and Hurley was later murdered by an unknown perpetrator.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas sentenced Millsap to life imprisonment. Millsap appealed, arguing that his indictment should have been dismissed due to a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, and that the district court made several errors regarding evidentiary issues and juror intimidation. He also challenged his sentence if the convictions were upheld.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply because Millsap was transferred to federal custody via a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum before a detainer was lodged. The court also held that there was no sufficient showing of juror intimidation to justify a mistrial. The court found the evidence sufficient to support Millsap's convictions on all counts, including his association with the drug-trafficking enterprise and his involvement in the attempted murder of Hurley.The court also ruled that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements and other evidence, and that any potential errors were harmless. The court upheld the district court's application of sentencing enhancements and the calculation of Millsap's criminal history points. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Millsap" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of grocery store owner-operators and their related company, Anchor Mobile Food Markets, Inc. (AMFM), who sued Onex Partners IV, Onex Corporation, Anthony Munk, and Matthew Ross (collectively, Onex) for violations of Missouri common law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The owner-operators had invested in the discount grocery chain Save-A-Lot and its independent licensee program, which turned out to be a disastrous investment. They alleged that Onex, which had acquired Save-A-Lot, had fraudulently induced them into the investment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri had granted summary judgment to Onex. The court found that the owner-operators had signed multiple contractual releases and anti-reliance disclaimers before opening their stores, which barred their claims. The owner-operators and AMFM argued that these releases and disclaimers were fraudulently induced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the owner-operators failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that they were fraudulently induced to enter the releases. The court also found that the releases were valid and barred the owner-operators' claims. The court further found that AMFM's claims against Onex failed, as neither Save-A-Lot nor Onex had contracted with AMFM. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the owner-operators and AMFM's request for leave to amend their complaint. View "SBFO Operator No. 3, LLC v. Onex Corporation" on Justia Law

Defendant ended up at a Twin Cities chiropractic clinic after an automobile accident. The visit resulted in a job: the clinic hired him to recruit patients. And then another one did too. Defendant’s role was to bring in as many accident victims as possible. Each new patient could undergo treatment up to $20,000, the limit of basic economic benefits available under most Minnesota automobile insurance policies. After a jury trial, the district court ordered Defendant to pay $187,277 in restitution to the insurance companies he defrauded. On remand, the amount of restitution decreased. This time, the district court concluded that Defendant qualified as a runner for only 53 of the 65 victims, which dropped the award to $155,864. Defendant, for his part, has adopted an all-or-nothing strategy: he does not believe he owes a single penny of restitution.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant received up to $1,500 per patient he recruited, which satisfies the pecuniary-gain requirement. A series of text messages establishes the remaining elements. When the clinic owner later said she was “praying for some ice and snow” to bring in more clients, Defendant replied that he had “been praying for [the] last four weeks.” It was reasonable to conclude from these messages that Hussein “directly procure[d]” these patients with at least a “reason to know,” if not actual knowledge, that the provider’s purpose was to obtain benefits under an automobile-insurance contract. View "United States v. Abdisalan Hussein" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to construct an aquaponics facility. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err by giving a jury instruction that enabled a finding that only defendant committed wire fraud; the district court did not err by giving an explicit unanimity instruction where there was no genuine risk of the jury finding nonunanimously; and defendant waived his argument that the district court did not err by sua sponte individually polling the jury. View "United States v. Burns" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for four counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and one count of tax fraud. The court rejected defendant's numerous claims of Napue violations, concluding that the statements at issue were corrected and the allegedly false testimony was stricken from the record. In regard to the remaining Napue claims, the court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that the violations are harmless. The court also rejected defendant's Brady claim, concluding that the district court correctly determined that the government's failure to inform defendant of the reverse proffer did not constitute a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence, even if favorable to defendant, was not material.The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that the district court committed clear error by concluding that the government did not violate the Jencks Act by failing to disclose an agent's report because the report included no statements made by government witnesses that related to the subject matter of their testimony. The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's fraud convictions, and defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on the cumulative impact of alleged trial errors. Finally, the court concluded that defendant failed to show the existence of any legal error or clear factual error in the district court's fraud-loss calculation, and imposing an order of restitution equal to the amount of the loss was not erroneous. View "United States v. Ruzicka" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 58 month sentence imposed after he was convicted of conspiracy to commit theft of public funds, theft of public funds, aggravated identity theft, money laundering, and mail fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from improper billing practices related to a federal program called the Child Care and Development Fund.The court held that the record supports the district court's conclusion that defendant was responsible for a loss amount between $250,000 and $550,000, and thus the offense level (and resulting guidelines range) was correct. In this case, defendant presented no evidence that he provided legitimate services or submitted legitimate bills. Furthermore, he provided no evidence differentiating legitimate from illegal billing. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the $536,833.75 paid to defendant's daycares by Missouri is the loss amount under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. View "United States v. Karie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and four counts of health care fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant entered into an agreement with others to create a medical testing lab that made money through illegal kickbacks. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that members of the conspiracy committed substantive violations and defendant, as a co-conspirator, was properly held liable for these substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the scheme. View "United States v. Golding" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to violate federal health care laws and eleven counts of health care fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a health care fraud scheme involving AMS, an entity that provided medical testing of blood, urine, and other specimens.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant voluntarily and intentionally participated in the conspiracy with knowledge that his plan to receive kickback payments and defraud Medicare was unjustifiable and wrongful. In this case, the evidence of defendant's significant experience within the health care industry combined with his attempt to conceal the true terms of his agreement with AMS was enough for the jury to conclude he knew the arrangement was unjustifiable and wrongful when he knowingly became a part of the conspiracy. View "United States v. McTizic" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing a false tax return, he unsuccessfully tried to withdraw his plea. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that defendant failed to show fair and just reasons why he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea where the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, based on the totality of the circumstances, that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; his plea did not lack a factual basis supporting the conviction; and the Government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility.The court also held that the Klein conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 was not void for vagueness; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to continue his sentencing or to bifurcate the sentencing and restitution proceedings; there was no error in the district court's order of restitution; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1. View "United States v. Flynn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for 14 counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and six counts of aiding and abetting securities fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in a market manipulation scheme.The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that defendant's conduct was fraudulent and manipulative within the meaning of the statutes in question; the evidence was sufficient to show nondisclosure or active concealment of a material fact where a jury could easily find that a reasonable investor would have found material the fact that a corporate insider had, through a nominee, purchased more than half of the freely tradeable stock and was directing that nominee and others to trade the stock at pre-arranged prices for the purpose of triggering tens of millions of dollars in bonus payments that would likely cripple the corporation; the district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err in admitting lay opinion testimony; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $15,135,361. View "United States v. Gilbertson" on Justia Law