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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction under 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws. Defendant was the owner and CEO of Winntech Digital Systems, and his conviction stemmed from his failure to pay employment taxes.The court concluded that the indictment was sufficient under Marinello v. United States, 584 U.S. ___,138 S.Ct. 1101 (2018), in charging defendant with corruptly endeavored to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) (Count Two). The court explained that Marinello clarifies what must be proven to sustain a conviction under section 7212(a) but does not require that nexus and knowledge be charged in the indictment. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court constructively amended Count Two, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss or for disqualification of the prosecution team on the basis of an alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege. View "United States v. Prelogar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats and violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951, with the exception of the district court's order taxing costs for grand jury witnesses. Defendant was an internet entrepreneur and social-media influencer, and his convictions stemmed from his efforts to force the victim to transfer a domain name.The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Government's reasons for striking the only Black prospective juror were race-neutral and not pretextual; there was overwhelming evidence that defendant committed the crime of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats and violence, and the testimony regarding a collateral issue did not affect defendant's substantial rights and did not have more than a slight influence on the verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing costs for a witness who attended but did not testify at trial; the district court did not err in ordering defendant to reimburse the government $22,000 in attorney fees; the district court did not procedurally err in imposing offense-level increases under USSG 2B3.2(b)(3)(A)(i), (4)(B), and (1) when calculating his total offense level; and the district court did not err when it imposed a two-level increase under USSG 2B3.2(b)(1). However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by assessing costs for witnesses who testified before the grand jury because those costs are not taxable against defendant. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that the employer retaliated against him in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and concluded that, even assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer offered legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for the adverse employment action. In this case, the employer offered several reasons for demoting and terminating plaintiff: among other things, plaintiff knew of and approved prohibited invoice practices, encouraged another person to do the same, lied about both, and engaged in unethical practices. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that the employers' reasons for his termination were pretextual. View "Scarborough v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 157 month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court affirmed the denial of safety-valve relief to defendant because the record amply supports the district court's finding that defendant failed to provide complete and truthful information. The court also concluded that defendant's 157-month sentence—a 53-month downward variance from the Guidelines range—is substantively reasonable. In this case, the sentence reflects full compliance with the applicable sentencing statutes and Guidelines provisions, taking into account the specific characteristics of this defendant, the circumstances, and nature of the offense. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Rios" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Hardee's after their six-year-old son was electrocuted by an exposed, electrified wire at one of defendant's restaurants and died. Hardee's moved for dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which the district court granted.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, concluding that, although its sister circuits take varying approaches to timeliness, under either approach, Hardee's filed a motion that was sufficiently untimely to warrant reversal. In this case, for 18 months, Hardee's knew the essential facts supporting its motion to dismiss. The court explained that the assertion that Missouri is an inconvenient forum for Hardee's rings hollow because of its long delay in filing its motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. The court concluded that, under these facts, the motion should have been filed earlier than 18 months after plaintiffs filed their complaint and earlier than the end of the discovery period prior to trial. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hersh v. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and unlawfully possessing firearms. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err by improperly vouching for witness credibility. Rather, the district court's explanation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 clarified any confusion defense counsel may have created.The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the drug quantity attributable to defendant at sentencing. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the standard condition of supervised release which requires a supervised person, when directed by the probation officer, to notify a person that defendant may present a risk to that person. The court explained that this standard condition is neither unconstitutionally vague nor an impermissible delegation of power. View "United States v. Janis" on Justia Law

This case arose out of several days of street protests during the September 2017 riots that occurred following the acquittal of a former St. Louis police officer for the on-duty shooting of a black man. Plaintiffs are a protester who allegedly was maced, a person whose cell phone was seized and searched as he filmed arrests, and an observer who was allegedly exposed to chemical agents and arrested on September 17.The Amended Complaint alleged that the City (i) violated the First Amendment by retaliating against plaintiffs for engaging in protected expressive activity; (ii) violated the Fourth Amendment because its custom, practice, and failure to train and supervise caused unlawful seizures and the use of excessive force by police officers; and (iii) violated the Fourteenth Amendment when officers failed to warn before deploying chemical agents, failed to provide opportunities to disperse, and arbitrarily enforced two ordinances of the St. Louis Code. The City subsequently appealed the district court's order denying its motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that included affirmative mandates pending a prompt trial on the merits of plaintiffs' claims for a permanent injunction, and the district court's order granting class certification.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the City's motion to dissolve the temporary injunction and remanded with directions to vacate and dissolve the injunction no later than October 31, 2021, if it has not been replaced with a final order either granting a permanent injunction or denying injunctive relief. The court explained that, given the rigorous 42 U.S.C. 1983 burdens of proof, the evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing relating to the events of September 2017, while relevant and sufficient to persuade the court to grant a preliminary injunction pendente lite, will not be sufficient to warrant permanent injunctive relief imposing the same levels of indefinite federal court control over the City's law enforcement responsibilities.The court vacated the class certification order without prejudice to plaintiffs renewing their request after a final order has been entered on their claim for permanent injunctive relief, at which point the district court can better assess whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class is appropriate and necessary to afford proper equitable relief. The court explained that, given the individualized inquiries plaintiffs' disparate claims require, the massive class action certified neither promotes the efficiency and economy underlying class actions nor pays sufficient heed to the federalism and separation of powers principles in Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent. View "Ahmad v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his son filed suit against three officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, violation of the Iowa Constitution, and common law invasion of privacy. The district court denied summary judgment, but reversed in part and remanded for trial. On remand, the district court held a trial on the state law claims, as well as the federal excessive force claim. On the state claims for invasion of privacy and Iowa illegal search or seizure, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law. The jury found in favor of defendants on the excessive force claims.In Wilson I, the Eighth Circuit ruled that defendants' acts were reasonable as a matter of law. The court explained that the substantive standard for search and seizure does not vary between Iowa and federal law. Therefore, any error was harmless, since it would not change the result: regardless of who theoretically must show the officers' conduct was reasonable, defendants did show their conduct was reasonable. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the state search and seizure claims. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the invasion of privacy claim. In this case, plaintiff cannot state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion because the officers' conduct was not a highly offensive intrusion on the private affairs or concerns of plaintiffs, and the stop of plaintiff's vehicle was lawful. The court also concluded that the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of Fourth Amendment and Iowa Constitution excessive force claims. Because the Iowa Supreme Court's standard for excessive force does not materially differ from the federal standard, the court explained that the district court did not need to separately instruct the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wilson v. Lamp" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegally possessing drugs and a firearm. The court agreed with the district court that the protective-sweep exception justified the initial search. In this case, when the victim opened the door of the hotel room, the room was dark, the officers saw movement, and they could not tell how many people were there. Combined with defendant's extensive history, these articulable facts gave officers a reasonable belief that there might be others in the room who posed a danger to them. Furthermore, the search did not exceed the scope of the lawful protective sweep when officers checked under the mattress for hidden fugitives.The court also agreed with the district court that consent justified the later reentry into the room to retrieve the gun. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm where the government presented sufficient evidence of constructive possession. View "United States v. Whitehead" on Justia Law

A TD Ameritrade customer filed suit against the company and two other defendants for securities fraud in the District of New Jersey. The lead plaintiff was appointed for a group of investors who purchased and sold securities through TD Ameritrade between 2011 and 2014. Plaintiff alleges that TD Ameritrade's order routing practices violate the company's "duty of best execution" by systematically sending customer orders to trading venues that pay the company the most money, rather than to venues that provide the best outcome for customers.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), concluding that even with the proposed algorithm, determining economic loss in this case entails individualized inquiry inconsistent with the predominance requirement of Rule 23. Therefore, the prevalence of these individualized inquiries precludes class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Furthermore, because economic loss cannot be presumed, ascertaining which class members have sustained injury means individual issues predominate over common ones. Finally, the court concluded that, by defining the class to include only those customers who were harmed by TD Ameritrade's alleged failure to seek best execution, the district court certified a class in which membership depends upon having a valid claim on the merits. Such a class is impermissible because it allows putative class members to seek a remedy but not be bound by an adverse judgment, and fail-safe classes are also unmanageable. View "Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." on Justia Law