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

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The Eighth Circuit enforced defendant's appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the arguments raised in this appeal. In this case, defendant does not dispute that the statements he made at his change-of-plea hearing, which carry a strong presumption of verity, demonstrate he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver. Furthermore, the appeal waiver falls within the scope of the waiver. Finally, enforcing defendant's appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order upholding the Commissioner's denial of social security disability insurance benefits (DIB). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the determination that plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 11.09B or 12.02. In this case, plaintiff's mental impairment did not cause at least two marked limitations or one extreme limitation, as required by the paragraph B criteria for Listing 12.02. Furthermore, although plaintiff's medical records revealed several minor deficiencies, such as a subtle tremor in her left hand and mild executive dysfunction, those records did not indicate a marked limitation in physical functioning and one of the four areas of mental functioning as required by Listing 11.09B. View "Schmitt v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' putative class action, alleging that they were misled by claims made on packages of dog food manufactured and distributed by Champion. Because plaintiffs have not challenged the district court's determinations that they lacked standing to claim that Champion misrepresented that the dog food is BPA-free, the court did not reach the merits of their related arguments.In this case, plaintiffs were required to plausibly allege that because of defendant's affirmative misrepresentations or material omissions, their dog food packaging could deceive a reasonable consumer. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' omission-based claims because none of Champion's packaging statements are deceptive or misleading, and thus none require corrective disclosures. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that Champion was required to disclose further information because of its special knowledge of material facts to which plaintiffs did not have access. The court stated that this duty to disclose based on special knowledge arises only in limited circumstances, which are not present in this case. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs' breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims are premised on the same allegations of deception that are insufficient to support the fraud claims, and thus they fail for the same reasons. View "Song v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed by the district court after this court's remand for resentencing on his conviction for firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant was not entitled to a reduction for possessing the ammunition for a lawful sporting purpose under USSG 2K2.1(b)(2). The court noted that any error in the district court's determination was harmless in any event, as the district court stated it would have given defendant the same sentence even if it had found the reduction applied. The court also concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. View "United States v. Sholley-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of fentanyl resulting in death and conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal where the government's evidence overwhelmingly supports defendant's conviction. Furthermore, there was no error in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors as these claims raise for the first time on appeal would not be considered. However, the court remanded to the district court with directions to amend the judgment to conform with defendant's indictment and the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Broeker" on Justia Law

Tumey filed suit alleging that Tumey's representation of Voice Tech Corporation in pending and separate patent infringement lawsuits against Mycroft prompted Mycroft to retaliate by launching and/or inspiring a series of cyber-attacks against Tumey. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act, and various state and common law claims.The Eighth Circuit applied the Dataphase factors and vacated the district court's grant of preliminary injunctive relief to Tumey, concluding that Tumey did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. In this case, even if there was no procedural due process issue, the district court committed a clear error of judgment when it issued a preliminary injunction based on a lack of evidence demonstrating Mycroft was responsible for the conduct at issue. Furthermore, even if Tumey came forward with sufficient evidence to connect Mycroft to the unlawful acts, Tumey has not convinced the court that money damages are insufficient to compensate him for the alleged injuries. The court found that this is a rare case in which the history, proceedings, and order reflect a sufficiently high degree of antagonism against Mycroft to warrant reassignment of the case on remand. View "Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging petitioner's conviction for distributing heroin resulting in death of another person. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition because he failed to establish that section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. In this case, petitioner's impediment to relief was existing caselaw, not the remedy provided by section 2255. Furthermore, because the saving clause enacted by Congress only provides relief when section 2255's remedy itself is inadequate or ineffective, the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition. Without jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition, the district court could not entertain the petition and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing. View "Crayton v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In regard to the suppression motions, the court concluded that defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his hospital room and thus the officer did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights by entering the room. Because the officer lawfully entered his hospital room and his clothes were in plain view, the court concluded that defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court also concluded that defendant's statements to the police were voluntary in light of the totality of the circumstances where law enforcement did not overbear defendant's will.The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the gun had been in or affected interstate commerce. The court upheld the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement for using or possessing any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense, aggravated assault in this case. Finally, even assuming the district court properly considered the probable-cause section of the complaint and nonelemental facts, it did not err in concluding that defendant committed the assaults on the same occasion and that he does not qualify as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Mattox" on Justia Law

Cline pleaded guilty to knowing receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), with an appeal waiver. His court-appointed counsel filed an “Anders” motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue. The Eighth Circuit agreed. Cline had moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was not given adequate time to read and understand the plea agreement, and that his plea was therefore not knowing and voluntary. Cline had also argued that his medications’ side effects interfered with his ability to make a knowing and intelligent plea. Cline’s testimony was inconsistent with his statements under oath at the plea hearing, which were found to be credible. It would be frivolous to argue on appeal that the district court erred in finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary and in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. There is no non-frivolous basis on which to challenge the appeal waiver with respect to Cline’s sentence, which was at the low end of the guideline range proposed in Cline’s sentencing memorandum; there is no evidence that the court considered an impermissible factor. The district court sustained Cline’s only objection and adopted the range urged by Cline. View "United States v. Cline" on Justia Law

When Menjivar was 10 years old, her family started attending an evangelical church in El Salvador. Menjivar became a youth leader. Menjivar, her sister, and other youth group members preached to young people. One of their missions was to help people leave gangs. Their pastor received a letter warning him to protect the youth group. Menjivar left El Salvador, fearing reprisals from the gang. When she was 17 years old, she entered the U.S., seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.Menjivar compiled documentary evidence, including affidavits from her sister and pastor, and country condition reports. The IJ received her evidence late, took about 45 minutes to review it, and denied her application, finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution and failed to show that she was ever personally harmed or threatened. The BIA affirmed, finding no due process violation. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. The IJ reviewed and considered the evidence; his decision discusses the very evidence Menjivar claims was overlooked. In addition, Menjivar failed to show prejudice. The affidavits from her sister and her pastor do not support a particularized fear of future harm to her but only mention general threats against church members. View "Menjivar v. Garland" on Justia Law