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

Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity after Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. He filed a motion in limine asking the district court to instruct the jury that Section 2423(a) required the Government to prove that (1) he knew R.M. was underage and (2) he intended the unlawful nature of the sexual activity. The district court denied the motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial. The court explained that Section 2423(a) “does not signal an exception to the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Therefore, a Section 2423(a) conviction predicated on intent to engage in unlawful sexual activity does not require proof of the defendant’s intent or knowledge that such activity is unlawful. Thus, the court held that the district court correctly held that the Government did not need to prove that Defendant specifically intended R.M. to engage in sexual activity that was unlawful as such. It was required to prove only (1) that he intended R.M. to engage in sexual activity and (2) that the sexual activity was unlawful. View "United States v. Luis Moreira Bravo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, sued the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, associated government officials, and lawyers and other private defendants alleging, among other claims, they violated his constitutional rights by pursuing an ethics complaint against him. The district court granted the state defendants' motion to dismiss under Younger v. Harris and found that Plaintiff waived his abuse-of-process claim against the private defendants. The court also held that Plaintiff lacked standing to seek sanctions based on the private defendants' alleged violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its determinations, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Herbert Igbanugo v. Minnesota OLPR" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the supervised release revocation sentence the district court imposed when it found, after a hearing, that he had committed three Grade C violations -- a new law violation, failure to comply with a search condition, and marijuana use.  On appeal, Defendant argued that, because he tested positive on April 1, it was a “near certainty” that he would test positive again on April 4. Therefore, for the district court to order eight months imprisonment on May 4 after ordering residential reentry on April 1 is “simply unreasonable.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it has repeatedly upheld revocation sentences that varied upward from the advisory guidelines range because the defendant was a “recidivist violator of supervised release conditions.” Here, the district court imposed a within-range sentence of eight months, a sentence that is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness. Thus, on the record, the district court did not abuse its substantial revocation sentencing discretion. View "United States v. Johnny Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant stopped Plaintiff for speeding. Plaintiff sued Defendant under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging, among other things, that Defendant pulled him over without probable cause. The district court denied Defendant’s summary judgment and qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s unlawful stop claim. On appeal, Defendant argued that he is entitled to qualified immunity.   The Eighth Circuit dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review the court’s factual assumptions. The court explained that Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff’s speed is immaterial for qualified immunity purposes assumes that Defendant used radar, clocked Plaintiff’s van, and clocked Plaintiff over the speed limit. But the district court did not assume these facts, which are material to whether Defendant reasonably believed Plaintiff broke the law Defendant’s jurisdictional arguments are “based on facts not assumed by the district court.” The court explained that because the factual record, as assumed by the district court, is unsettled and disputed, it lacks jurisdiction to go further. View "Sheck Mulbah v. Cody Jansen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her former employer, Marsden Building Maintenance, L.L.C., alleging wage discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Marsden. Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her wage discrimination claim. Plaintiff also argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Marsden on her sex discrimination claim.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that on the record, Marsden has met its burden to prove the pay differential between Plaintiff and her male counterparts was based on a factor other than sex. Further, the court wrote that Plaintiff offered no evidence to support her sex discrimination allegation. Plaintiff took issue with how Marsden’s operations manager conducted himself in the role of operations manager. But none of the evidence she presented supports a reasonable inference that his decision to fire her is “more likely than not” explained by an intent to discriminate against her on the basis of her sex. View "Maria Mayorga v. Marsden Building Maintenance" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders directing state officials to transport or facilitate testing for purposes of Petitioner’s clemency case. Because argument would not be helpful or assist us in analyzing this issue of statutory interpretation, the court denied Petitioner’s request for oral argument. Petitioner was sentenced to death in 2001 for killing two Sheriff’s Deputies. Petitione, relying on the same authority, filed an ex parte sealed motion in preparation for his clemency case—this time requesting that the court authorize a doctor to conduct bone-lead level testing on Petitioner, either in a private room in the prison or at another secure location of the prison’s choosing. The next day the district court granted the ex parte motion for bone-lead level testing. The district court entered an ex parte sealed order directing the Warden and Missouri Department of Corrections to transport Petitioner to the hospital on October 24, 2022, at 6:00 a.m. for medical testing. The State moved the district court to vacate and stay its orders, but before the district court ruled on the motions.   The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders directing state officials to transport or facilitate testing for purposes of Petitioner’s clemency case. The court held that because argument would not be helpful or assist us in analyzing this issue of statutory interpretation, Petitioner’s request for oral argument is denied. The court explained that Section 3599’s authorization for funding neither confers nor implies an additional grant of jurisdiction to order state officials to act to facilitate an inmate’s clemency application. View "Michael Tisius v. David Vandergriff" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, have appealed an order of the district court granting summary judgment for J&M Securities, LLC, in an action arising from disputes over debt collection. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring claims under federal law, and dismissed their claims under Missouri law on the merits. The husband died while the appeal was pending. The wife moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(a)(1) to substitute herself for her husband.   Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s reinstated order and judgment. As part of the appeal, the wife contends that once the district court concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their federal claims, the court should have remanded the case to state court. The district court agreed with this contention in its amended judgment but then vacated that judgment on the view that it lacked jurisdiction to enter it.   The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by vacating the amended judgment and that the case should be remanded to state court. The court explained that here, the district court reconsidered its own remand order before any appeal. Under the statute, however, the remand order is “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” And This language has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court. The court remanded to the district court with instructions to reinstate the amended judgment of January 26, 2022, as to the claims of the wife, and to return the case to Missouri state court. View "Felicia Stone v. J & M Securities, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of his peers for possession of child pornography. Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and admission of certain evidence. Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the warrant was not sufficiently particular and lacked the requisite nexus.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained In this case, multiple child pornography images were flagged by a search engine, those images were affiliated with four IP addresses, and those IP addresses were registered to the address that was searched. In addition, the state court was aware that Defendant had a previous conviction for possession of child pornography and lived at the address flagged for child pornography. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded there was a sufficient nexus between the evidence to be seized and the place to be searched. Further, the court agreed with the district court that Defendant’s prior conviction for possession of child pornography has probative value because of its similarity to the charged offense.   Finally, the court explained that the non-Rule 414 evidence connecting Defendant to the child pornography on his tablet was overwhelming. And the government’s case was only marginally strengthened by the excess propensity evidence. Accordingly, the court held any error in admitting evidence under Rule 414 was harmless. View "United States v. Gene Schave" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted and convicted on two counts of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2251(a). The indictment focuses on two secretly recorded videos of M.B., Defendant’s then approximately fifteen-year-old cousin, before and after she took a shower in Defendant’s master bathroom. The district court sentenced Defendant to 210 months of imprisonment.   The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient. The court explained that the statute underlying the indictment prohibits a person from using a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct. Congress, in turn, defined sexually explicit conduct as the lascivious exhibition of genitals—not mere nudity. Applying this statute to the evidence presented at trial, the court concluded no reasonable jury could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Matthew McCoy" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a 31-year-old man, alleged to be a native and citizen of Honduras present in the United States without being lawfully admitted. Petitioner petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) that found Petitioner removable and denied his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it is well established that “traditional rules of evidence do not apply in immigration proceedings, except to the extent that due process is implicated. To satisfy due process in a removal proceeding, “evidence must be probative and its admission must be fundamentally fair.” Here, the evidence submitted by DHS meets this standard. While some of the evidence includes undeniable inconsistencies, it is all probative of Petitioner’s alienage. And there is no indication that its admission was fundamentally unfair. View "Eduardo Escobar v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law