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

Marcus Rexrode, a convicted felon, arranged to sell marijuana to a sixteen-year-old, J.M. During the transaction, J.M. attempted to rob Rexrode at gunpoint, and J.M.’s companion also produced a firearm and fired at Rexrode. Rexrode fled while shooting back, fatally wounding J.M. Rexrode subsequently entered a plea agreement with the government, pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss a murder charge. The plea agreement included a joint recommendation for a 180-month sentence, acknowledged the possibility of guideline departures, and reserved both parties’ rights to object to any departures.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which calculated a guidelines range of 41 to 51 months but identified grounds for upward departures due to the offense resulting in death and uncharged conduct. At sentencing, the court applied these departures, raising the guidelines range to 97 to 121 months, and imposed a 120-month sentence—substantially below the joint recommendation. Rexrode appealed, arguing procedural error in applying the departures and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was no procedural error, as Rexrode had agreed to the possibility of departures and did not object to the Presentence Investigation Report or the departures at sentencing. The court also found that any error would have been harmless, as the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. Additionally, the court determined that Rexrode had waived his right to appeal the sentence, as it fell within the adjusted guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Rexrode" on Justia Law

In August 2022, a Rosebud Sioux Tribe police officer stopped a black Chevy Impala after observing it attempt to avoid his patrol car and learning that its license plates were registered to a different vehicle. The driver, Lydia Stead, and the passenger, Tevin Thin Elk, Sr., could not provide ownership documents. While the officer checked the vehicle’s VIN and their licenses, another officer arrived with a trained drug-detection dog, Iwan. During the stop, Iwan alerted to the presence of narcotics in the vehicle. Shortly after, the officer learned that Stead had an outstanding warrant and arrested both Stead and Thin Elk. A search of the vehicle revealed a firearm, and a search of Thin Elk uncovered marijuana and a pen testing positive for methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota held two hearings on Thin Elk’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches. The court denied the motion, finding that Thin Elk lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search as a mere passenger, that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged, and that the canine alert provided probable cause for the search. The court credited the officers’ testimony and found the drug-detection dog to be reliable, despite expert testimony to the contrary.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that Thin Elk did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, the stop was not unlawfully extended, and the dog’s alert established probable cause for the search. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s credibility determinations regarding the officers and the reliability of the canine. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Tevin Thin Elk, Sr." on Justia Law

Three individuals were prosecuted for their roles in an investment fraud scheme conducted through a company called The Brittingham Group. The defendants solicited large sums from investors, promising extraordinary returns within a short period and assuring them that their money was safe. They misrepresented the legitimacy and success of their operations, used fraudulent documents to bolster their claims, and routed investor funds through complex international transactions. When investors failed to receive returns, the defendants collaborated to provide misleading explanations. Ultimately, investors lost over sixteen million dollars, with most never recovering their contributions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas presided over the trial, where a jury convicted all three defendants of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, multiple counts of wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. One defendant faced an additional money laundering charge. The court sentenced each to significant prison terms. Prior to trial, one defendant unsuccessfully sought to replace his appointed counsel, a decision upheld after a hearing before a magistrate judge. The defendants raised various challenges at trial and sentencing, including claims of insufficient evidence, improper testimony, and sentencing errors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. The court held that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the request for new counsel, and declined to consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. The court found no plain error in the admission of the government investigator’s testimony. It determined that sufficient evidence supported the convictions of all defendants. The court also upheld the sentencing calculations, including enhancements for intended loss and abuse of trust, and found the sentences substantively reasonable. The court affirmed the forfeiture order against one defendant. The judgments of the district court were affirmed in all respects. View "United States v. Nock" on Justia Law

A citizen of the United Kingdom, who currently resides in Japan, underwent surgery in the United Kingdom to have a medical device implanted. The device was manufactured by a Minnesota-based company, which is a subsidiary of a New Jersey-based parent company. After the device allegedly failed, the plaintiff traveled to Colorado for removal and replacement of the device, but continued to experience problems. He later received additional medical care in Thailand. Dissatisfied with the device’s performance, he filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserting negligence and strict liability claims against both the manufacturer and its parent company.The defendants did not contest jurisdiction or venue in Minnesota, but moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum. The district court agreed, reasoning that most relevant events and evidence were outside Minnesota, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to add more facts connecting the case to Minnesota, concluding that such an amendment would be futile. The plaintiff’s subsequent request to file a motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court held that the district court failed to properly hold the defendants to their burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis and erred by automatically weighing all contacts outside Minnesota in favor of the United Kingdom, rather than considering contacts with the entire United States. The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for a new forum non conveniens analysis, instructing the district court to apply the correct legal standards and properly weigh the relevant factors. View "Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, law enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas, conducted a sting operation targeting illegal prostitution, which led to the arrest of A.B., a woman working for Deonte Womack. Initially, A.B. did not identify Womack, but after suffering physical abuse from him, she later cooperated with authorities. The FBI’s investigation revealed that Womack managed a prostitution ring involving at least twelve women, exerting control through violence, threats, and financial manipulation. Womack was arrested and charged with three counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and one count of witness intimidation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas presided over Womack’s trial. The court allowed testimony from a woman, C.C., about uncharged conduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), with a limiting instruction to the jury. At the close of the government’s case, the district court granted Womack’s motion for judgment of acquittal on one sex trafficking count and the witness intimidation count, but denied it as to the remaining two sex trafficking counts. The court also denied Womack’s request for a lesser included offense jury instruction and sentenced him to 235 months’ imprisonment, applying a base offense level of 34 under the sentencing guidelines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed four issues. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting C.C.’s testimony under Rule 404(b), nor in denying the lesser included offense instruction, and found sufficient evidence supported the convictions. However, the appellate court concluded that the district court erred in calculating the base offense level at sentencing, as Womack was not convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1). The court affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing with the correct base offense level. View "United States v. Womack" on Justia Law

Aaron Cardinale was stopped by Omaha police officers after they observed him allegedly failing to signal a left turn at least 100 feet in advance, as required by Nebraska law. During the stop, a K-9 unit detected drugs in his vehicle, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Cardinale moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Cardinale's motion to suppress. The court found that the officers had a reasonable belief that Cardinale violated the traffic signal law based on Officer Cleveland's testimony. The court reviewed video evidence and other exhibits but concluded that the evidence did not clearly show the officer's belief was unreasonable. Cardinale's motion to reconsider was also denied, with the court reiterating that the entire record supported the officer's reasonable suspicion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Cardinale argued that the government did not present sufficient historical facts to justify the stop and that Officer Cleveland's testimony was too conclusory. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, noting that the officer's testimony was credible and supported by the record. The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion does not require precise measurements or perfect knowledge, only that the officer's belief was reasonable under the circumstances. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Cardinale's motion to suppress evidence. View "United States v. Cardinale" on Justia Law

In May 2020, a fire started in the engine of a recreational power boat on the Lake of the Ozarks, causing an explosion that injured Lauren Wilken and killed Shawn Carroll. The Carroll family and Wilken sued the boat's designer, manufacturer, and seller (collectively "Brunswick") for defective design, failure to warn, negligence, and wrongful death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Brunswick.The plaintiffs appealed, asserting four errors by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. They claimed the district court erred in denying their Batson challenge, excluding evidence of other similar incidents, striking expert testimony, and not allowing them to introduce evidence of other explosions during closing arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no clear error in the district court's denial of the Batson challenge, as Brunswick's reason for striking Juror No. 13 was deemed reasonable and based on accepted trial strategy. The court also upheld the exclusion of evidence related to the Schroeder explosion, as the plaintiffs failed to show that the conditions of the boats were sufficiently similar. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to strike the expert's testimony about the Schroeder explosion as a sanction for violating its order. Lastly, the court determined that the district court's curative instruction to the jury regarding Brunswick's counsel's comment during closing arguments was sufficient to mitigate any potential prejudice.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Brunswick. View "Carroll v. Brunswick Corporation" on Justia Law

John Baldwin sued Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging he was unlawfully removed from his position following a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Baldwin, who had degenerative arthritis and underwent a double hip replacement, experienced a bursitis flare-up while working, leading to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Despite being cleared by his orthopedic surgeon and a physical exam, Union Pacific's Chief Medical Officer imposed work restrictions based on Baldwin's exercise tolerance test results, which showed low aerobic capacity and mild hypertension. Baldwin was ultimately prevented from returning to his job.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied both parties' summary judgment motions. Baldwin voluntarily dismissed his disparate impact and ADEA claims, proceeding to trial on the ADA claims for disparate treatment and failure to accommodate. The jury found that Union Pacific discriminated against Baldwin based on a perceived disability but concluded he posed a direct threat to himself. The district court entered judgment for Union Pacific and denied Baldwin’s motion for a new trial, which challenged the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Baldwin argued that the jury instructions misallocated the burden of proof and omitted essential elements of the direct threat defense. The court found that while the direct threat instruction was incomplete, it did not affect the trial's outcome. The business judgment instruction was deemed appropriate and did not mislead the jury. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the instructions, taken as a whole, did not mislead the jury or affect Baldwin's substantial rights. View "Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Lonnie Parker, a licensed medical practitioner, was found guilty by a jury of distributing oxycodone and promethazine HCl with codeine solution in a manner unauthorized by the Controlled Substances Act. The case began when an individual named N.C. was pulled over for reckless driving, found impaired, and later died in custody. The DEA suspected Parker of operating a "pill mill" and seized patient records from his clinic. An expert reviewed these records and found that Parker had prescribed controlled substances inappropriately.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas sentenced Parker to 87 months’ imprisonment. Parker appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, the jury instructions were improper, and the district court committed procedural error in sentencing. The district court had calculated Parker’s base offense level by including uncharged prescriptions as relevant conduct, resulting in a total offense level of 30 and an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. The court varied downwards to 87 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Parker’s convictions, as the expert testimony provided enough basis for the jury to conclude that Parker prescribed controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions, noting that the instructions as a whole clarified the requirements for criminal conduct. Finally, the court determined that any potential error in calculating the quantity of controlled substances for sentencing was harmless, as the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

Shue Moua was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The conviction stemmed from a traffic stop conducted by Deputy Nils Hansen, who observed Moua's erratic behavior at a gas station and suspected she was impaired. During the stop, Hansen noted several signs of impairment and discovered methamphetamine in Moua's vehicle during an inventory search after her arrest.Moua moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that the traffic stop was invalid and unreasonably prolonged. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, finding that Hansen lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. However, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota overruled this recommendation, concluding that Hansen had reasonable suspicion based on Moua's impaired behavior and vehicle registration issues. The district court also found that the stop was not unreasonably extended. Moua was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 72 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Deputy Hansen had reasonable suspicion to stop Moua's vehicle based on her erratic driving and the absence of visible registration tags. The court also determined that the stop was not unreasonably prolonged, as Hansen's suspicions evolved during the encounter, justifying further investigation. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Moua's motion to suppress and upheld her conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Moua" on Justia Law