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

Eugene Hollow Horn Bear was convicted by a jury of two counts of abusive sexual contact and pled guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. Hollow Horn Bear appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his convictions, a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota initially handled the case. Hollow Horn Bear was indicted on multiple counts, including sexual abuse and failure to register as a sex offender. The district court severed the SORNA counts, and Hollow Horn Bear was tried on the sexual abuse counts. He was acquitted of sexual abuse of a person incapable of consent but convicted of two counts of abusive sexual contact. He later pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, and the court dismissed the remaining count. At sentencing, the court considered his criminal history and mitigating factors but imposed a total term of 108 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as the jury was entitled to believe the testimony of the witnesses despite their intoxication. The court also found no Double Jeopardy violation, as each act of sexual contact constituted a separate offense under the relevant statutes. Finally, the court determined that the sentence was substantively reasonable, given the serious nature of the offense and the district court’s consideration of the mitigating factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. View "United States v. Hollow Horn Bear" on Justia Law

Hamdi A. Mohamud, a plaintiff, sued Heather Weyker, a St. Paul police officer, for wrongful arrest. Weyker, while working as a cross-deputized federal agent on a federal task force, allegedly lied to protect a federal witness, Muna Abdulkadir, leading to Mohamud's arrest. Weyker falsely claimed that Mohamud and others were trying to intimidate Abdulkadir, resulting in their arrest for witness tampering. Mohamud spent about 25 months in custody before the charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota previously reviewed the case. Mohamud's claims were based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Mohamud's requests for limited discovery and to amend her complaint, concluding that further discovery would be futile and that the proposed amendment would not change the outcome. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Weyker, following the reasoning from a similar case, Yassin v. Weyker, which held that Weyker did not act under color of state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Weyker acted under federal authority, not state law, when she protected a federal witness in a federal investigation. The court found that the new facts alleged by Mohamud did not change the analysis from the Yassin case. The court also concluded that further discovery would not have made a difference and upheld the district court's denial of Mohamud's discovery request. View "Mohamud v. Weyker" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Joseph, an inmate working in a metal plant at a Missouri prison, injured his thumb while operating a "press-brake" machine. Joseph sued his supervisor, Kurt Schmiedeskamp, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Schmiedeskamp subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by instructing him not to use the machine's hand restraints, which were designed to prevent such injuries. Joseph claimed that Schmiedeskamp told him not to use the restraints because they slowed production.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Schmiedeskamp's motion for summary judgment, which argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Schmiedeskamp then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Schmiedeskamp was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Joseph failed to show that Schmiedeskamp's actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. The court distinguished this case from Ambrose v. Young, noting that Schmiedeskamp's response to Joseph's question about the hand restraints did not demonstrate that he knew the machine presented a substantial risk of harm. The court also cited other cases involving inmate injuries in industrial settings, which indicated that the law was not clearly established in this area. Consequently, the court concluded that Schmiedeskamp's conduct did not meet the standard of deliberate indifference required to overcome qualified immunity. View "Joseph v. Schmiedeskamp" on Justia Law

Michael Lindell, a Minnesota entrepreneur, challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, claiming to have data proving Chinese interference. Lindell Management LLC (LMC) hosted a "Cyber Symposium" in August 2021, offering a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove the data provided was not from the November 2020 election. Robert Zeidman, a software developer, participated in the challenge, reviewed the data, and concluded it did not contain any information related to the election. The challenge judges disagreed and denied his claim.Zeidman filed for arbitration, and the arbitration panel unanimously found in his favor, ordering LMC to pay the $5 million reward. The panel determined that the contract required participants to prove the data was not related to the election and that Zeidman had met this burden. Zeidman then moved to confirm the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, while LMC sought to vacate it. The district court confirmed the panel's decision, finding that the panel had arguably interpreted and applied the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority by using extrinsic evidence to interpret the unambiguous contract terms. The court held that the panel effectively amended the contract by requiring the data to be packet capture data, which violated Minnesota contract law and arbitration precedents. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to grant LMC's motion to vacate the arbitration award. View "Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC" on Justia Law

A group of television and radio broadcasters challenged the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2023 Order, which retained all existing media ownership rules and tightened one of them following the 2018 Quadrennial Review. The broadcasters argued that the FCC erred by defining the relevant video and audio markets too narrowly, retaining all parts of the radio and television ownership rules, and tightening Note 11 of the television ownership rule.The FCC's 2023 Order was issued after the 2018 Quadrennial Review, which included a notice of proposed rulemaking and a public comment period. The FCC retained the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Local Television Ownership Rule, defining the markets narrowly to exclude non-broadcast sources. The FCC justified its decision by emphasizing the unique aspects of broadcast sources and the need to prevent excessive consolidation. The FCC also modified Note 11 to prevent circumvention of the Top-Four Prohibition by including low-power TV stations and multicast streams.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in retaining the Top-Four Prohibition part of the television ownership rule and improperly tightened Note 11. The court vacated and remanded the Top-Four Prohibition and the amendment to Note 11 but withheld the issuance of the mandate for 90 days to allow the FCC an opportunity to provide adequate justification. The court denied the remainder of the petition, upholding the FCC's market definitions and retention of the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Two-Station Limit. View "Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

Andrew and Jessie Welsh purchased The Press Bar and Parlor in 2016, managing it through two entities: Horseshoe Club, LLC, which owned the real estate, and Timeless Bar, Inc., which operated the bar. Andrew and Jessie were the sole members and officers of both entities. Illinois Casualty Company (ICC) issued a business owner’s policy covering the bar’s property and operations. Timeless Bar was the named insured, and Horseshoe Club was an additional insured. After their divorce in November 2019, Andrew took sole control of the businesses’ finances. On February 17, 2020, a fire destroyed The Press Bar and Parlor. Andrew and Jessie submitted a claim to ICC, stating the fire was of unknown origin. However, an investigation revealed Andrew had intentionally set the fire, leading to his conviction for arson. ICC denied the claim based on policy exclusions for concealment, misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty, and intentional acts.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Jessie’s claims due to her lack of standing as a non-insured. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of ICC, attributing Andrew’s conduct to both business entities and concluding the policy did not cover the loss. The court also held that Minnesota’s statutory protection for innocent co-insureds did not extend to corporate entities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Andrew’s misrepresentations were attributable to the business entities, and thus, ICC was justified in denying coverage. The court found no basis in Minnesota law to extend the innocent co-insured doctrine to corporations or limited liability companies. View "Timeless Bar, Inc. v. Illinois Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Ada Martinez-Medina, a Hispanic female of Puerto Rican descent, worked for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and alleged that her supervisor assigned her work above her pay grade and took credit for her work. She filed two Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints alleging discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, which were settled in August 2018. After the settlement, she experienced further issues, including a delayed performance review and derogatory comments from her acting supervisor. She filed another EEO complaint in March 2019, which was denied, leading her to file a lawsuit in federal district court.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Secretary of the USDA, finding that Martinez-Medina had not presented sufficient evidence to support her claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Martinez-Medina did not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment because the alleged adverse employment actions did not affect an identifiable term or condition of her employment. Additionally, the court found that she did not present evidence that the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not granting her reassignment request was pretextual.Regarding the hostile work environment claim, the court concluded that the incidents Martinez-Medina cited were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. For the retaliation claim, the court determined that there was no causal link between her protected EEO activity and the alleged retaliatory acts.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, granting summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. View "Martinez-Medina v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Adan Shamburger pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. Initially, the district court determined an advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment but varied upward and imposed a 48-month sentence, citing the lethality of fentanyl, Shamburger's distribution activities, violent tendencies, high risk of recidivism, and criminal history. Following a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which altered the calculation of criminal history scores, Shamburger's advisory guideline range was reduced to 24-30 months. Consequently, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas initially sentenced Shamburger to 48 months. After the Sentencing Commission's Amendment 821, which was made retroactive, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months. Shamburger argued that the reduction was unreasonable and that the court should have shortened his sentence further, given the new advisory guideline range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Shamburger's sentence by only two months. The court explained that there is no presumption that a sentence reduction must be proportional to the original sentence within the new advisory range. The district court's decision to impose a sentence close to the original term, despite the lower amended guideline range, was deemed permissible. The appellate court also found no procedural error, as the district court adequately explained its reasoning by referencing its previous discussion of the § 3553(a) factors and the seriousness of the offense conduct. View "United States v. Shamburger" on Justia Law

Two children, a nine-year-old girl and her eight-year-old brother, reported sexual abuse by their stepfather, who lived with them and their mother. After the children disclosed the abuse to a nurse practitioner, law enforcement obtained consent to search the family’s residence, seizing a red iPhone and the children’s bedding. Investigators discovered that the stepfather had shared child pornography via the Mega file-sharing service. Upon questioning, he admitted ownership of the phone, provided its password, and consented to its search. Investigators found videos on the phone and Mega account depicting the children in sexually explicit situations, with the stepfather’s voice directing them. DNA evidence linked him to semen found on the children’s bedding.A grand jury indicted the stepfather on two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of committing those offenses while on the sex offender registry, and one count of possession of child pornography. After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the court found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to 720 months in prison and a life term of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for two counts, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, even though the district court did not explicitly address each of the Dost factors for lascivious exhibition. The court also found no abuse of discretion or plain error in the admission of testimony from a prior victim, the nurse practitioner, or the forensic scientist, nor in the admission of a partially completed Miranda waiver form. The sentence was deemed reasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. En Maati" on Justia Law

Ryan Vanicek was killed in a traffic accident when a tractor-trailer driven by Kenneth Kratt, on behalf of Sandair Corporation, collided with his pickup truck. Jessica Vanicek, Ryan's wife, filed a wrongful death and survival action against Kratt and Sandair. Lyman-Richey Corporation, Ryan's employer, intervened under Nebraska's worker's compensation statute. A magistrate judge struck Jessica's claim for punitive damages and denied her leave to amend her complaint. The district court later compelled a settlement over Jessica's objection and ordered the funds to be deposited without post-judgment interest.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska initially referred the issue of punitive damages to a magistrate judge, who struck the claim, applying Nebraska law. The district court overruled Jessica's objection to this order. The district court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and denied a motion for partial summary judgment on pre- and post-impact damages. The district court approved a $5 million settlement proposed by Lyman-Richey, finding it fair and reasonable based on expert reports and the defendants' insurance policy limits. Jessica appealed the denial of her motion to amend and the settlement approval.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed Jessica's appeal regarding the denial of her motion to amend for lack of jurisdiction, as she failed to object to the magistrate judge's order in the district court. The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement, finding no abuse of discretion in its evaluation of damages and the defendants' ability to satisfy the judgment. The court also upheld the district court's decision to deny post-judgment interest, concluding that Jessica was estopped from claiming it due to her attorney's dilatory conduct. View "Vanicek v. Lyman-Richey Corp." on Justia Law