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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of an unregistered destructive device. Defendant's convictions stemmed from an improvised explosive device that had exploded under defendant's ex-wife's car, damaging the car, the house where the ex-wife and their 13-year-old son was present, as well as a neighbor's house.The court concluded that, even assuming the prosecutor's remarks regarding defendant's alibi defense were improper, the court cannot say that they prejudiced defendant's rights to obtaining a fair trial. In this case, the comments were brief and limited to the prosecutor's closing argument and the trial court properly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence. Finally, the prosecutor's comments did not prejudice defendant where the government presented the jury with substantial evidence of defendant's guilt. View "United States v. McBaine" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Integrity in an action brought by plaintiff for negligent performance of an undertaking. Plaintiff filed suit after he was injured in a cab driven by a drunk driver, alleging that Integrity should have done a better background check on the cab driver.The court concluded that Integrity did not owe any duty to plaintiff under Iowa law. The court explained that, even assuming Integrity could have discovered the cab driver's Minnesota DWI, its review of his records did not put plaintiff in a worse situation because the cab company put the driver behind the wheel. Therefore, plaintiff failed to state a duty as a matter of law under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 324A. The court also concluded that there was no liability under Sec. 324A(c) of the Restatement because the cab company did not rely on the insurer's background check and conducted its own review of the driver's record. View "Foster v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that the district court erred in applying the cross-reference to USSG 2A2.1(a)(1) where the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had used the gun to commit an attempted murder. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court meaningfully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including defendant's repeated disregard for the safety of the community and the need to protect the public. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In regard to the first warrant that authorized police to search for guns, items tending to show possession of guns, and electronic storage devices which would tend to store or send information relating to illegal drug trafficking, the court concluded that an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that the warrant permitted him to search for evidence of illegal gun possession, including defendant's cell phone. Therefore, the video found on the cell phone was admissible under the good faith doctrine. The court also concluded that there was a substantial basis to find that probable cause existed to seize defendant's phone and, even if there were not, the court would nonetheless conclude that the good faith exception applied. View "United States v. Eggerson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in a case where defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue or to transfer venue to another judicial district. The court explained that, taking the allegations in the indictment as true, there was venue in the Eastern District of Missouri to try the allegation that defendant conspired to commit money laundering in "the Eastern District of Missouri" and elsewhere. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have transferred venue to the Central District of California. In this case, the district court correctly observed that the investigation into the drug proceeds was conducted in St. Louis, the relevant documents were in St. Louis, witness expenses for defendant's defense would be paid by the government, and defendant's counsel was in St. Louis. View "United States v. Hardaway" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, an Iowa Department of Corrections inmate, alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and safety. Plaintiff claimed that defendants delayed treatment for a sore on his right foot, allowing it to become a major medical crisis resulting in a below-the-knee amputation.The court concluded that plaintiff failed to provide evidence from which a trier of fact could draw an inference that defendants provided care that was grossly inappropriate or intentional maltreatment. In this case, plaintiff's unsupported medical conclusions cannot create a question of fact about whether defendants' medical decisions were reasonable, negligent, grossly negligent, or so ineffective as to be criminally reckless, rising to the level of deliberate indifference. The court explained that, without medical evidence, no reasonable jury could conclude that the providers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. View "Redmond v. Kosinski" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request to take back his guilty plea to bank robbery. The court concluded that, by failing to object to his first attorney's performance during the plea hearing, defendant foreclosed using the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel route to plea-withdrawal.The court concluded that defendant's 210-month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's mitigating factors, and provided a reasonable basis for its sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sisk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Sachse, Ameriprise, and individual Ameriprise officers, alleging violations of federal securities law. Plaintiff also sought to represent other Sachse and Ameriprise clients in a class action. Defendants filed motions to strike plaintiff's class action allegations and to compel arbitration, which the district court denied.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for entry of an order striking plaintiff's class action allegations and compelling arbitration. The court concluded that it has appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of defendants' motions to strike class action allegations because this denial was contained in an order reviewable under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(B). The court also concluded that defendants have not waived their right to arbitrate by moving to strike plaintiff's class action allegations at the same time they moved to compel arbitration where the action was not inconsistent with their right to arbitrate and did not substantially invoke the litigation machinery. On the merits, the court concluded that a valid arbitration clause exists and that it encompasses the dispute between the parties. In this case, the court agreed with defendants that the arbitration clause was valid because it was supported by mutual assent, was supported by consideration, and was not unconscionable. View "Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review challenging the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. The court concluded that the BIA's decision to review the factual issue for clear error was correct.The court also concluded that, even if the court assumed that petitioner suffered harm that amounted to past persecution, the court would still conclude that it was not motivated by her membership in a particular social group. In this case, the record shows that petitioner was targeted because the individual that threatened her father assumed that she owned the land that once belonged to her father—not because she was related to him. Finally, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because she failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she could not relocate in Honduras. View "Padilla-Franco v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, and several firearm offenses. Defendant, a Native American, claimed that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a cross section of the community because he had no Native Americans on his jury.Even assuming Native Americans are underrepresented in the Central Division's jury pool, as the district court suggests they may be, the court concluded that defendant has not shown the underrepresentation "is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." The court explained that the practice of using voter registration rolls to compile the master jury wheel is expressly permitted under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, which governs the manner for selecting federal jurors. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment's fair cross section requirement applies only to the composition of the jury pool, not the final composition of the jury.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial in a different venue. In this case, defendant agreed to the for-cause strikes of Native Americans and did not contest the non-discriminatory reasons the government offered for a peremptory strikes of the remaining Native Americans on the jury panel. Furthermore, defendant did not seek a change of venue on these grounds at jury selection or at any other time during trial. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on the conspiracy count; evidentiary challenges failed; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. View "United States v. Erickson" on Justia Law