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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) based on his involvement with the Crips street gang. The court concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that defendant's attempts to commit state-law crimes could serve as RICO predicate offenses. Even assuming, that the reference to Count III in Instruction No. 35 created an obvious error in the instructions as a whole, the court concluded that defendant has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. In this case, there is no reasonable probability that the jury, having found defendant not guilty of attempted assault with a dangerous weapon, inconsistently relied on attempted assault with a dangerous weapon to convict him of the RICO conspiracy.However, the court vacated defendant's 84 month sentence, concluding that the district court mistakenly treated aggravated assault with a firearm as an act of racketeering for purposes of the guidelines, and this error affected the guideline range. Furthermore, the error was not harmless, and thus a remand for resentencing is required. View "United States v. Haynie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's political retaliation claim related to disciplinary measures and his ultimate termination from the Sheriff's Office. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's determination that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff from pursuing his political retaliation claim based on those issues he raised in his termination appeal; the district court could give the Iowa Civil Service Commission's determination preclusive effect; and plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that his two-day suspension was political retaliation because he could not establish a causal connection between the suspension and his political campaign. View "Charleston v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude the jail calls because the government promptly provided defendant with the evidence as soon as it became aware of its existence and obtained the calls; there was no error in refusing to admit testimony from defendant's proposed expert witness on matters of law where, under court precedent, informing the jury about the law is reserved for the trial judge; there was no error in rejecting defendant's two proposed jury instructions; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where a rational jury could have readily inferred defendant's knowledge that he was a prohibited person from the circumstances. View "United States v. Walking Bull" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture. The court concluded that there was no error in the denial of defendant's motion to suppress where defendant failed to preserve this issue when he did not identify the seized items he wanted suppressed, as District of Minnesota Local Rule 12.1(c)(1)(B) requires; the court need not consider whether the district court erred in concluding the automobile exception applied because the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle; and the information provided by the confidential informant was sufficiently reliable to support the presumptively valid warrant.The court also concluded that defendant's 204 month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court expressly considered the sentences imposed on other conspirators, noted significant ways in which defendant was not similarly situated for sentencing purposes, and granted a substantial downward variance from the advisory guidelines range. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for making false statements to licensed firearms dealers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A). Prior to trial, the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charges on Second Amendment grounds. Defendant argues that section 924(a)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because it conditioned the purchase of a firearm on a statement regarding his prior involuntary commitment to a mental institution.The court concluded that defendant failed to raise his as-applied section 924(a)(1)(A) challenge in the district court and thus forfeited his claim. The court also concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where his as-applied challenge to the statute fails under the plain error analysis because it is far from plain or obvious that the Second Amendment protects defendant's conduct - making a false statement or disregarding ATF Form 4473 to obtain a firearm. View "United States v. Lehman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of the University's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs, former players of the University's women's ice hockey team, filed suit after the University cut its women's ice hockey team but not its men's ice hockey team.Given the regulatory structure and its textual content, the court disagreed with the district court's reasons for dismissing the complaint. The court explained that, when applying the 1979 Interpretation of the implementing regulation, the district court improperly relied on a compliance test from the Levels of Competition provision (VII.C.5) as the only way to analyze a claim under the separate, unrelated Selection of Sports provision (VII.C.4). The court concluded that the 1979 Interpretation's Contact Sports Clause's plain text is not inconsistent with the regulation's Separate Teams Provision. By disregarding the plain text, the court concluded that the district court erred in its analysis.Ultimately, the court concluded that the district court's primary reasons for dismissing the complaint rested on an incorrect view of the law. In this case, it appears that the district court saw the Contact-Sports-Clause claim as futile, not novel. Therefore, no set of facts could have convinced the district court to give the athletes a second look. But given a level playing field, the court concluded that the athletes may be able to state an actionable Title IX claim. The court remanded for the district court to apply the law to plaintiffs' complaint in the first instance. View "Berndsen v. North Dakota University System" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging Iowa Code Sec. 717A.3A(1)(a)-(b), which makes it a crime for a person to gain access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses and to make false statements on an employment application to such a facility, on First Amendment grounds. The district court ruled that both provisions were unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the provisions providing that a person is guilty of agricultural production facility fraud if they obtain access to the facility by false pretenses is consistent with the First Amendment because it prohibits exclusively lies associated with a legally cognizable harm - namely trespass to private property. The court explained that the proscription of the Employment Provision does not require that false statements made as part of an employment application be material to the employment decision. Therefore, the statute is not limited to false claims that are made "to effect" an offer of employment; it allows for prosecution of those who make false statements that are not capable of influencing an offer of employment. The court concluded that, given the breadth of the Employment Provision, it proscribes speech that is protected by the First Amendment and does not satisfy strict scrutiny. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacating the injunction against enforcement of the access provision. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of $283,609.15 in attorneys' fees to Manning in this action arising out of a contract dispute between Kinder, a general contractor, and Manning, a subcontractor.The court concluded that the district court properly applied Arkansas state law to decide the matter because the issue of attorneys' fees is a procedural matter governed by Arkansas law. The court also concluded that the subcontract's silence as to Manning's ability to recover attorneys' fees as the prevailing party does not operate as a waiver of its right to recover such fees under Ark. Code Ann.16-22-308. The court further concluded that because the requested attorneys' fees were incurred by Manning, Manning's recovery of such attorneys' fees is not prohibited under Ark. Code Ann. 23-79-208. View "Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. v. JA Manning Construction Company, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's denial of petitioner's second motion to reopen her immigration proceedings. Having reviewed petitioner's proffered evidence, including her affidavit and several news articles, the court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in the BIA's assessment that the evidence unfortunately "shows that the poor conditions facing gays and Christians in Somalia have remained substantially similar since the time of [her] hearing" and that reopening was not warranted on the basis of changed country conditions.The court also concluded that petitioner failed to establish that she was denied a fair hearing in violation of her due process rights. The court explained that petitioner's removal proceedings did not deny her a fair hearing because nothing in the record suggests the IJ would have had any indication that petitioner, who was incarcerated at the time, was intoxicated or otherwise unable to understand the proceedings. View "Yusuf v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order declining to impose a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to reduce defendant's sentence where the district court noted that defendant's 300-month sentence is well-below his guideline range, characterized his criminal history as "extensive and violent," and exercised its broad discretion to forego a sentence reduction on that basis. The court explained that, although the order did not explicitly address all of the arguments defendant made in support of his motion, not every reasonable argument advanced by a defendant requires a specific rejoinder by the judge. The court stated that the district court was uniquely positioned to consider the many factors necessary in exercising its ultimate discretion, and nothing in the First Step Act required the district court to grant defendant relief based on defendant's challenge to his career offender status. View "United States v. Shepard" on Justia Law