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

During an investigation of a peer-to-peer computer file-sharing network being used to acquire child pornography, officers learned from Sandell's neighbor that Sandell had asked to use their Wi-Fi to access the internet to register his sex offender status. Officers knocked on Sandell’s door, identified themselves, conducted a sweep of the home, then asked Sandell where he would like to talk. Sandell invited them inside. The officers explained they were attempting to obtain a search warrant for Sandell’s home but that Sandell was not under arrest, was not obligated to talk to them, and was free to leave. Officers supervised Sandell while he moved around the house. Sandell admitted to downloading child pornography. He voluntarily turned over a camera and thumb drives, stating that he was likely facing 15 years' imprisonment. The officers ultimately obtained a warrant and collected Sandell’s laptop, thumb drives, and DVDs.Sandell was later charged with distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Sandell unsuccessfully moved to suppress statements made at his home. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Sandell was not in custody; the officers did not need to advise Sandell of his Miranda rights. Officers informed Sandell repeatedly he was not under arrest and was not obligated to speak to them. Sandell retained his freedom of movement and voluntarily answered questions. Officers did not use strong-arm or deceptive tactics. Sandell was not immediately arrested. View "United States v. Sandell" on Justia Law

Officer Deaver learned Hansen's girlfriend had purchased a shotgun, listing her address as the home she shared with Hansen. Knowing Hansen had a prior felony conviction, Deaver rode to the property, on a pickup day, in a garbage truck operated by J&J Sanitation. Deaver retrieved a trash container outside the garage and emptied the contents. Officers sorted the trash and found gun catalogs, a plastic baggie containing marijuana, and a transaction history documenting Hansen’s purchases of gun parts. A Nebraska state judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of Hansen’s residence, where law officers seized firearms and ammunition.Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, Hansen unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence and sought a “Franks” hearing, alleging that Deaver omitted material information from the warrant affidavit when he failed to mention that his trash container was located on private property. Hansen asserted he had an agreement with J&J not to pick up his trash unless he moved the container “to a public property location” 200 feet from his garage. Hansen claimed he told J&J not to use the “driveway” leading to his house. The district court sentenced Hansen to 36 months' imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that it was not clear whether the trash was beside a private driveway or a public street and that Deaver had no way of knowing about any agreement Hansen might have had with J&J. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's reduction of SLF's request for an award of attorneys' fees. The court also affirmed the denial of SLF's motion to recuse, concluding that the unsupported and self-serving affidavit submitted by an SLF employee was not enough to leave the court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred. The court stated that recognizing SLF's practices for what they are—overbilling— does not call a judge's ability to render a fair judgment into question. The court rejected SLF's argument that the district court abused its discretion by excluding some of SLF's work from its fee calculation and imposing a 20% reduction on SLF's requested fees. Rather, SLF engaged in negotiating tactics that unreasonably extended the litigation, wasting the district court's time and resources. Therefore, the district court was entitled to reduce the lodestar calculation by considering appropriate factors, including unprofessional conduct. View "Oden v. Shane Smith Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of six counts for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for an entrapment instruction because defendant never produced evidence of inducement. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where, even assuming certain testimony violated the stipulation as to his status of a felon was improper, the weight of the evidence produced at trial demonstrates that the testimony was not prejudicial.In regard to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that defendant has not offered a reason to suspect the government purposefully facilitated the purchase of additional guns solely to enhance his sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. In this case, the record reflects the district court's thoughtful weighing of the appropriate factors, and the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offenses in conjunction with the other aggravating factors identified at sentencing. View "United States v. John" on Justia Law

Based upon its belief that Walmart has failed to comply with the terms of an injunction, Cuker sought to initiate contempt proceedings against Walmart, requesting supplemental damages for Walmart's post-verdict use of its trade secrets.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and concluded that the district court did not err in denying the request to commence contempt proceedings because Cukor had failed to make a prima facie case showing a violation of, or refusal to follow, a court order. In this case, Cuker's claim that the district court did not consider its arguments or evidence is belied by the record. Upon review of the record and Cuker's arguments, the court stated that Cuker's challenges to the district court's order go to the weight the court gave its evidence, not a failure to consider the evidence. View "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), concluding that defendant's three burglary convictions under Texas Penal Code Ann. Sec. 30.03(c)(2) qualified as violent felony predicate offenses. The court stated that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has made plain that the Texas burglary statute requires a specific intent to commit the crime. Furthermore, the court has not been pointed to any case to the contrary. View "United States v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of First Care in an action brought by plaintiffs, alleging that First Care unlawfully terminated them from their positions at an assisted-living facility. First Care claimed that plaintiffs were terminated because, as mandatory reporters, they had failed to immediately report observed abuse.The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege a claim of retaliation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1114(1)(c) where they have failed to identify any demand by First Care to engage in an unlawful action. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981, Title VII, and Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1104(1) failed because plaintiffs ultimately failed to identify a similarly situated comparator. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the district court's exclusion of investigator notes and reports on hearsay grounds. View "Walker v. First Care Management Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, and possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where he failed to show that the government acted in bad faith in regards to a missing surveillance video. The court stated that holding new evidence that at best was only a source of impeachment material did not constitute a sufficient reason to permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.As to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility where he made frivolous objections related to the quantity of drugs attributed to him at sentencing. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court thoroughly explained its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Finally, in light of the district court's thorough analysis and under plain error review, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by making a statement regarding his two siblings. View "United States v. Seys" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to sua sponte reopen immigration proceedings because the decision is purely discretionary. The court also concluded that equitable tolling, even if petitioner raised the issue, does not fall into the narrow exception allowing the court to consider colorable constitutional claims. View "Salcido Mar v. Garland" on Justia Law

Boor and Edson owned Brava, which had intellectual property and technical knowledge related to composite roofing. Wildhawk inquired about purchasing Brava. Boor proposed “an exclusive license for manufacturing current roofing products” with “a right of first refusal on all new product [d]evelopments.” The parties executed asset purchase and license agreements. Wildhawk paid $4 million and obtained an automatic license to “any Improvements” to the technology, whether patentable or not. Before executing the agreement, the parties removed a “New Product” section as required by Wildhawk’s lender but entered into an oral agreement for a right of first refusal. Wildhawk retained Boor and Edson as paid consultants, with non-compete agreements.Boor notified Wildhawk: “As per our handshake agreement” we offer you first right of refusal “on the below products.” The parties entered into a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement regarding “possible R&D ‘new or enhanced product’ agreements.” They negotiated but failed to reach an agreement. Boor and Edson formed Paragon while Boor was still employed by Wildhawk. Paragon began producing the new products.Wildhawk sued. The district court granted Wildhawk a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Paragon from manufacturing or selling composite roofing. The Eighth Circuit vacated. Wildhawk had a fair chance of proving the defendants violated the agreement but the district court erred in rejecting an equitable estoppel defense. Wildhawk waited until Paragon had been producing the products for 10 months before making its claim, failing to show either reasonable diligence or harm that cannot be compensated by damages. View "Wildhawk Investments, LLC v. Brava I.P., LLC" on Justia Law