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

A jury convicted Defendant of possession with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 262 months in prison. Defendant appealed the conviction, challenging the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress. Defendant argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his Miranda waiver was not “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court found Defendant was “alert, aware of his criminal liability, and appropriately responding to questions” while talking with the officers. It credited the officers’ testimony that he “appeared coherent and did not tell them that he was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.” His behavior was “consistent with someone who understood the nature of his crimes,” and he “did not appear to be intoxicated.” Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in finding “no evidence that Defendant’s alleged intoxication caused his will to be overborne.” Further, the court held that the district court did not err in determining that Defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent. Finally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not reopening the suppression hearing. View "United States v. Anthony Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota (University) following the elimination of the University’s men’s gymnastics team. He then sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the team pending the outcome of the litigation. The district court denied the motion for the preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff’s delay in filing for the injunction undermined his claim of irreparable harm and that the other preliminary injunction factors favored the University. Plaintiff appealed the order denying the motion for the preliminary injunction. At issue on appeal is whether Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, and second, whether he unreasonably delayed in bringing the claim.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it has found that “delay is only significant if the harm has occurred and the parties cannot be returned to the status quo.” Here, the men’s collegiate gymnastics season begins in December at the earliest and January at the latest. The goal of a preliminary injunction is “to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined.” Given that the injunction motion was not filed until November 2021 and that the majority of the coaching staff and other gymnasts had left the University by this time, it would have been improbable, at best, for the team to have competed in the 2021–2022 season. Because Plaintiff sought an injunction after it would have been possible “to preserve the status quo,” the court held that the delay was unreasonable and that it consequently defeated Plaintiff’s goal of preventing irreparable harm. View "Evan Ng v. Board of Regents of the U of M" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes. In calculating his offense level, the presentence investigation report (PSR) applied a cross-reference in the Sentencing Guidelines for bribery. The cross-reference applies “[i]f the offense was committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another criminal offense.” The PSR found that the bribes were accepted for the purpose of facilitating a conspiracy to distribute between 15 and 45 kilograms of methamphetamine. Over Defendant’s objections, the district court agreed with the PSR and applied the cross-reference in determining Defendant’s offense level.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that despite its stated low regard for the confidential informant’s (“CI”) credibility, the district court credited his testimony over Defendant. That determination is “virtually unreviewable on appeal.” The CI’s testimony recounted acts Defendant undertook that assisted in the CI’s drug-trafficking business. The CI testified that in response to the Postal Service’s interception of one of his drug packages, Defendant advised him to use trucks instead of the mail to transport drugs as well as change both his phone and his address. This occurrence evinced Defendant’s intent to be paid in return for helping the CI avoid detection by law enforcement. The CI presumably wanted to avoid detection for much the same reasons as all drug traffickers: the better quality of life found outside prison and the continued ability to run his illegal business. Defendant helped him remain free; by doing so, he assisted in the CI’s drug-trafficking business. For doing so, he received $31,000. Defendant’s story “just defies logic,” and the district court appropriately chose to disregard it. View "United States v. Nathan Koen" on Justia Law

After (Decedent) died, two of his three adult children brought a pro se diversity action in the District of Minnesota against Defendant, Decedent’s second wife. They asserted multiple claims arising from Defendant’s alleged use of her power as Decedent’s attorney-in-fact to close two Certificates of Deposit and keep funds that Decedent intended would benefit his children. Defendant moved to dismiss, alleging lack of diversity jurisdiction because Decedent’s third child, like Defendant, is a resident of California and is an indispensable, non-diverse party. Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs’ incomplete assignment did not establish diversity jurisdiction. The district court determined it has diversity subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the FAC claims with prejudice because they fail to state a claim and Plaintiffs are not real parties in interest. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court found that the district court properly granted Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to state plausible claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and civil theft. Therefore, the court wrote it need not separately consider the district court’s alternative ruling that Plaintiffs are not “real parties in interest” under Rule 17(a). Further, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted in the FAC. The court explained it does not agree that additional claims regarding Defendant’s use of the CD proceeds after she was done acting as Attorney-in-Fact would necessarily have been futile. But without a proposed amended complaint to consider, the district court did not abuse its discretion by assuming they would be. View "Eric Sorenson v. Joanne Sorenson" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of attempted enticement of a minor using the internet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b). Defendant appealed, asserting three claims: the district court (1) abused its discretion when it allowed the prosecution to impeach him using evidence not disclosed prior to trial; (2) committed plain error when it allowed the prosecutor to attack his credibility during rebuttal closing argument; and (3) imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that even if the evidence should have been excluded, any error was harmless because it neither affected Defendant’s substantial rights nor had more than a slight influence on the verdict. Here, the prosecutor argued that the Agent’s testimony refuted Defendant’s claim that his conduct was an attempt to commit suicide by cop. That said, the prosecutor’s florid language in the rebuttal argument presents a close question related to propriety. Even assuming the argument was improper, there is no reasonable probability that Defendant would have been acquitted without the statements. Given the overwhelming evidence against Defendant, he cannot show the remarks were clearly injurious or that prejudice resulted. Finally, the court wrote that after considering and weighing Section 3553(a) factors, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, which is presumed to be reasonable. View "United States v. Christopher Truax" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Canadian citizen, conditionally pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits any alien who is unlawfully present in the United States from possessing a firearm. The district court sentenced him to 78 months imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that Section 922(g)(5)(A) is unconstitutional under the Second and Fifth Amendments. He also raised various challenges to his sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that it found no abuse of discretion in the court’s consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors and Defendant’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The court explained that besides Defendant’s status as an international fugitive facing murder and fentanyl-trafficking charges in Canada, the district court cited Defendant’s possession of high-capacity magazines not accounted for in the guidelines, his purchase of numerous firearms and magazines over an extended period of time, and his failure to be deterred from continued criminality as aggravating factors that supported an upward variance. The court explicitly addressed mitigating factors, such as Defendant’s youth and troubled upbringing, but concluded that these did not outweigh the significant aggravating factors.   Further, the court explained that even assuming that Defendant is correct that the district court could have ordered his federal sentence to run concurrently under Setser, his argument fails. The district court never stated or implied that it lacked discretion to order Defendant’s sentence to run concurrently with his possible Canadian sentence. Nor did it state that Setser’s reasoning was inapposite. View "United States v. Dayne Sitladeen" on Justia Law

The Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust Board of Trustees (“Board”) denied Plaintiff’s application for disability pension benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Plaintiff argued the Board’s stated reason for denying his application was unreasonable and the Board violated its fiduciary duties. The district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the Board did not breach its fiduciary duty when it did not notify Plaintiff the Notice of Decision he submitted on appeal was insufficient. The initial letter the Board sent to Plaintiff noting the absence of the document clearly stated Plaintiff needed to submit a “Notice of Award.” When the plain language of the Plan and the Board’s other communications are consistent, there is no obvious unfairness to Plaintiff if his claim is denied because he submitted the wrong document. Further, the court found that there is no evidence the Board knew silence would harm Plaintiff because, in the May 2018 phone call, Plaintiff himself asked about how waiting to receive the pension would affect the annuity amount and ultimately requested estimates for retirement at later ages. Moreover, Plaintiff has not identified anything that should have caused the Board to know he misunderstood his rights. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the duty of loyalty. View "Adam Ruessler v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust" on Justia Law

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) appealed the District of Minnesota’s dismissal order entered in favor of the members of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy (Board) based on a lack of standing. PhRMA’s lawsuit alleged a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim challenging the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act (Act). The Act, enforced by the Board members, requires, among other things, that pharmaceutical companies provide certain prescription medications to qualifying applicants at no cost.   PhRMA filed this suit on behalf of itself and three of its members—Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., and Sanofi—that manufacture most of the insulin sold in the United States and are subject to the Act. PhRMA alleged that the Act’s provisions violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. PhRMA sued the Board members, in their official capacities, seeking (1) a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and (2) an injunction barring its enforcement.   The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing PhRMA’s suit for lack of standing. The court further rejected the Board members’ alternative grounds for affirmance on the basis of lack of associational standing and the sovereign immunity bar. The court reasoned that this case involves an allegation of a physical, per se taking with a request for equitable relief, neither of which “require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” View "Pharmaceutical Research v. Stuart Williams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff began working for McDonnell Douglas in 1985. He stayed there until it merged with The Boeing Company (Boeing) in 1997. In 2017 and 2018, Plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for promotions within Boeing. Both times, the promotion was given to younger candidates who scored better in the interview. In 2017, the promotion went to an employee aged 33; in 2018, to one aged 34. Plaintiff alleged that Boeing discriminated against him on the basis of age, in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff brought two separate lawsuits, now consolidated, alleging age discrimination in relation to the 2018 opening and a claim for constructive discharge.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing on both claims, holding that Plaintiff (1) failed to demonstrate a material dispute as to whether Boeing’s stated rationale for the hiring decision was a mere pretext for age discrimination and (2) failed to timely file a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within six months of when his constructive-discharge claim accrued.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Plaintiff failed to rebut the non-age-based, legitimate reasons offered by Boeing for its choice to hire the other applicant instead of him. Further, Plaintiff alleged that his termination paperwork started the clock, not his email. The court explained that Plaintiff gave his employer a little more than five weeks’ notice. But his claim still accrued then—on the day he gave notice, not the day he filed the paperwork. Because May 28, 2020, falls 185 days after November 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s complaint was untimely and thus barred. View "Jeff Bonomo v. The Boeing Company" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of child pornography for using the social-media website Pinterest to trade child pornography. He claimed that the evidence was insufficient to show that he distributed or accessed the material. Further, on appeal, he argued that the district court should have kept the jury from hearing about his Pinterest profile, search history, and chat records. Defendant contends that uploading the image to the “Little” board does not count as “distribution . . . by computer.” Second, he argued that even assuming someone distributed child pornography, the government never proved it was him.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant knew that there was at least one other user who had access to the “Little” board. From that evidence, the jury was free to draw the common-sense conclusion that he had access to the pornographic image that Defendant posted. Nothing more was necessary to “distribute . . . child pornography . . . by computer.”   Further, in regard to Defendant’s alternative-perpetrator defense, the court held that the government proved its case. First, it showed how Defendant set up the account. The government’s theory was that he created his profile while at work and then uploaded the image from his friend’s house using an Android phone. To support that theory, his friend confirmed that Defendant was in each of those places during the dates and times in question and that he had given him an Android phone. Second, the government connected the Pinterest account to Defendant. View "United States v. Timothy Caruso" on Justia Law