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

Khemall Jokhoo was previously convicted by a jury of multiple offenses, including aggravated identity theft, impersonating a federal officer, and various fraud charges. His sentence was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After serving his prison term, Jokhoo was found by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to have violated the conditions of his supervised release seven times within a month, leading to an additional one-year prison sentence.Jokhoo appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings that he failed to work regularly and held unapproved employment with fiduciary responsibilities. He also contended that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, claiming the district court imposed it with a focus on retribution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found no error in the district court's determination that Jokhoo failed to work regularly. The court noted that Jokhoo worked only one day during the nearly month-long period and had ample time to secure employment during his pre-release period. The court dismissed Jokhoo's argument that he needed time to find a new job after being terminated, as he should have anticipated the job loss due to violating a supervised release condition.The appellate court also concluded that any potential error in finding that Jokhoo held unapproved employment with fiduciary responsibilities was harmless. The district court did not need this finding to revoke his supervised release, as other uncontested violations were sufficient. Additionally, the court found that the district court's mention of retribution did not affect Jokhoo's sentence, as the primary reason for the sentence was his repeated rule violations.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Khemall Jokhoo" on Justia Law

In late September 2023, JT Myore was convicted by a District of South Dakota jury of aiding and abetting carjacking and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence on August 25, 2019, and of robbery on May 3, 2021. In early November 2023, a second jury convicted him of second-degree murder for a separate incident on May 3, 2021. The district court sentenced him to 540 months imprisonment after a consolidated sentencing hearing in February 2024. Myore appealed both convictions and the combined sentence.The district court found sufficient evidence to support the carjacking and brandishing convictions, rejecting Myore’s argument that the government failed to prove he took the vehicle by force or intimidation. The court also upheld the use of acquitted conduct from the May 2021 incident to enhance his sentence. For the second-degree murder conviction, the court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, which Myore opposed. The jury found him guilty of second-degree murder.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed both convictions and the sentence. It held that there was sufficient evidence for the carjacking and brandishing convictions, and that the district court did not err in considering acquitted conduct at sentencing. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions for the second-degree murder charge, as Myore did not raise heat of passion as a defense. Additionally, the court upheld the obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement, finding that the district court made independent findings that Myore testified falsely at trial. View "United States v. Myore" on Justia Law

Matthew Mungai, a Black man of Kenyan origin, sued the University of Minnesota, alleging racial discrimination and harassment while he was a student. He claimed violations under Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), the Fourteenth Amendment, and negligence. Mungai detailed several incidents of racial harassment by students and staff over three years, including derogatory comments and threats. He reported some incidents to university staff and the Student Conflict Resolution Center (SCRC).The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Mungai's claims, finding that his amended complaint failed to state a claim. Mungai appealed, focusing on his Title VI claim and challenging the dismissal with prejudice of his Title VI, MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court adopted the deliberate indifference standard for third-party harassment claims under Title VI, similar to Title IX. To establish liability, Mungai needed to show that the University was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment by individuals under its control. The court found that Mungai's allegations did not plausibly show that he reported the incidents to an appropriate person with authority to take corrective action. Additionally, the court found that Mungai did not provide sufficient facts to establish that the University acted with deliberate indifference.The court also upheld the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Mungai's MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims. The MHRA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Fourteenth Amendment claim could not be brought directly, and the University was not a "person" under § 1983.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Mungai v. University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Lugene Shipp and Dione Mobley were charged with conspiring to distribute heroin resulting in death and distribution resulting in death after M.W. died of heroin intoxication. M.W. had purchased heroin from Kami Kinzenbach, who sourced it from Shipp and Mobley. M.W. was found dead in his bedroom with heroin and fentanyl residue. An autopsy confirmed heroin intoxication as the cause of death. Kinzenbach's testimony and electronic messages linked Shipp and Mobley to the heroin sold to M.W.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa conducted a bench trial, convicting Shipp on both counts and Mobley only on the conspiracy count. Shipp and Mobley challenged their convictions based on evidentiary rulings, the Confrontation Clause, and sufficiency of the evidence. Mobley also argued that the district court erroneously relied on acquitted conduct at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not err in admitting the electronic messages from M.W. and Sidnee, as they were either not hearsay or fell under hearsay exceptions. The court also concluded that the admission of these statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause since they were not testimonial. Additionally, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the heroin distributed by Shipp caused M.W.'s death, rejecting the defendants' speculative claims about other potential sources of heroin.Regarding Mobley's sentencing, the court determined that the district court properly considered M.W.'s death and drug quantities associated with the conspiracy, as Mobley was convicted of conspiring to distribute heroin resulting in death. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both Shipp and Mobley. View "United States v. Shipp" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of in-state and out-of-state precious metal traders and their representatives (the "Bullion Traders") challenging Minnesota Statutes Chapter 80G, which regulates bullion transactions. The Bullion Traders argued that the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause due to its extraterritorial reach, as defined by the term "Minnesota transaction."The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota initially found that Chapter 80G violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The case was then remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for a severability analysis. The district court concluded that striking portions of the "Minnesota transaction" definition cured the extraterritoriality concern and complied with Minnesota severability law.The Bullion Traders appealed, arguing that the severed statute still applied extraterritorially and that the district court erred in applying Minnesota severability law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the severed definition of "Minnesota transaction" no longer regulated wholly out-of-state commerce and that the statute, as severed, was complete and capable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court correctly severed the extraterritorial provisions from Chapter 80G, and the remaining statute did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also agreed that the severed statute complied with Minnesota severability law, as the valid provisions were not essentially and inseparably connected with the void provisions, and the remaining statute was complete and executable. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Styczinski v. Arnold" on Justia Law

Principal Springer was involved in drug dealing within 1,000 feet of a school and had multiple firearms in his apartment. Following a lengthy investigation, a search of his apartment revealed drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms. He was charged with conspiring to deal drugs within a school zone and unlawfully possessing firearms due to his drug use and a prior misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction. Springer moved to dismiss the firearm count, arguing that the restrictions violated the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and Springer pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal his Second Amendment challenges. He was sentenced to 110 months in prison.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Springer’s motion to dismiss the firearm count. Springer then pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the Second Amendment issues. He received concurrent sentences of 110 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the statute prohibiting drug users from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), is not facially unconstitutional, referencing its previous decision in United States v. Veasley. The court also rejected Springer’s as-applied challenge to the statute prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), noting that a conviction under any one of the § 922(g) categories is sufficient. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to grant a downward variance in sentencing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Springer" on Justia Law

Crabar/GBF, Inc. (Crabar) sued Mark Wright, Wright Printing Co. (WPCO), Mardra Sikora, Jamie Frederickson, and Alexandra Kohlhaas for trade secret violations and related claims. Crabar alleged that after purchasing WPCO's folder business, WPCO retained and used confidential information, including customer lists and sales data, to launch a competing folder business. Crabar also claimed that former employees Kohlhaas and Frederickson took and used Crabar's confidential information to aid WPCO's new business.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska held an eleven-day trial, where the jury found all defendants liable on each count, awarding Crabar over five million dollars in compensatory and exemplary damages. Post-trial motions led to a final amended judgment of roughly four million dollars against the defendants. Defendants appealed, challenging several of the district court’s rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, including the denial of WPCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding a contractual damages limitation, finding WPCO waived the argument by not raising it in the final pretrial order. The court also upheld the enforceability of confidentiality agreements signed by Frederickson and Kohlhaas, and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and causation of damages.The Eighth Circuit also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on damages, as the expert's assumptions were not fundamentally unsupported. The court found no error in the jury's award calculations, rejecting the argument of double recovery and affirming the sufficiency of evidence linking defendants' actions to Crabar's damages. The court concluded that the jury's awards were not excessive or the result of passion or prejudice. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Crabar/GBF, Inc. v. Wright" on Justia Law

Arkansas Act 629 criminalized many previously legal hemp products. A coalition of affected businesses sued state officers, alleging that Act 629 is unconstitutional. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the state's motion to dismiss the Governor and Attorney General.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Supremacy Clause and due process claims. The court concluded that the 2018 Farm Bill likely preempted Act 629 and that the Act was likely void for vagueness. The court also found that the Governor and Attorney General were not entitled to sovereign immunity because they were sufficiently connected to the enforcement of Act 629.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the 2018 Farm Bill did not expressly preempt Act 629 because the Act's savings clause allowed for the continuous transportation of hemp through Arkansas. The court also found that Act 629 did not conflict with the 2018 Farm Bill's purpose of legalizing hemp production, as the federal law allows states to regulate hemp production more stringently. Additionally, the court concluded that Act 629 was not unconstitutionally vague, as the terms "continuous transportation," "synthetic substance," and "psychoactive substances" were sufficiently clear.The court further held that the Governor and Attorney General were entitled to sovereign immunity because they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of Act 629. The court vacated the preliminary injunction, reversed the order denying the motion to dismiss the Governor and Attorney General, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bio Gen LLC v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Reginald Robinson, Jr. entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, preserving his right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment and a motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. Robinson appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress based on an invalid Miranda waiver and lack of reasonable suspicion, and his motion to dismiss the indictment challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3).The district court denied Robinson’s motion to suppress, concluding that Officer Siferd did not circumvent Miranda and that Robinson’s waiver of his rights was knowing and voluntary. The court also found that Officer Siferd had reasonable suspicion to detain Robinson based on the Walmart employee’s report and the odor of marijuana. The district court denied Robinson’s motion to dismiss the indictment, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent that upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court found no evidence that Officer Siferd engaged in an orchestrated effort to circumvent Miranda and concluded that Robinson’s waiver of his rights was knowing and voluntary. The court also held that Officer Siferd had reasonable suspicion to detain Robinson based on the shoplifting report and the odor of marijuana. Additionally, the court upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3), noting that Robinson’s challenges were foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Leslie Isben Rogge, aged 85, filed a motion for compassionate release in 2022, citing his age, deteriorating health, and need for specialized care as extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. Rogge argued that his release would be consistent with applicable sentencing policy statements. The district court denied the motion without prejudice, stating that Rogge was not eligible to request relief himself under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA).Rogge was convicted and sentenced in five separate armed bank robbery cases between 1984 and 1997. In July 2021, he filed a pro se motion for compassionate release, which was denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He filed a second motion in July 2022, and the court appointed a Federal Public Defender, who filed an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration. The government opposed the motion, arguing that Rogge failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances and that his criminal history weighed against release. The district court concluded that Rogge was an "old law" inmate, ineligible to seek compassionate release under § 3582(c) until at least October 25, 2025, and denied the motion without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that defendants who committed their crimes before November 1, 1987, are not eligible to move for § 3582(c) compassionate release relief on their own behalf. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with other circuits that the FSA did not alter the exclusion of offenses predating November 1, 1987. Therefore, only the Bureau of Prisons may initiate a compassionate release request for Rogge, and it did not do so in this case. View "United States v. Rogge" on Justia Law