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

Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that his appellate counsel abandoned him by failing to communicate and provide requested documents. The district court denied his motion but issued a certificate of appealability on defendant's right to counsel for a petition for rehearing under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.The Eighth Circuit concluded that there is no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary appeals, and because petitioner has no constitutional right to rehearing counsel, he cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel. The court rejected petitioner's contention that the Criminal Justice Act plan or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(a) grant the right to effective assistance of counsel for petitions for rehearing. Therefore, the district court properly denied petitioner's section 2255 motion. View "Ahumada v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Selective in an action brought by Selective, seeking a declaration that a subcontractor's policy did not require it to defend or indemnify CSC General. CSC entered into a subcontract that required it to be an "additional insured" on Glosson's general liability policy, and Glosson's policy was with Selective.In this case, Glosson damaged the parking lot through its handling of the cement (adding too much water) before it hardened. Thus, the damage was caused, at least in part, by handling of the cement, not handling of real property. Therefore, the court concluded that CSC is an additional insured for the property damage Glosson caused. The court also concluded that the district court erred in looking beyond the denial letter in focusing at length on five coverage issues not stated in Selective's coverage denial. The court explained that the district court did not properly apply North Dakota's estoppel law on insurance coverage. Finally, the court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate on the bad faith claim. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Selective Way Insurance Co. v. CSC General Contractors, Inc." on Justia Law

After the University dismissed plaintiff from its medical residency program, plaintiff filed suit for wrongful termination and alleged that the University discriminated against her based on age and disability, as well as retaliated against her.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the University, concluding that the University established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination. In this case, assuming that plaintiff made a prima facie case for age discrimination, the University produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff by explaining that she made an egregious error affecting patient safety despite supervisor and attending efforts. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show evidence of pretext. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act because there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the University regarded her as disabled at the time before her termination. View "Canning v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for charges stemming from his involvement in an armed robbery of a store. The court concluded that the district court committed prejudicial error in denying his motion to dismiss a 18 U.S.C. 924(c) firearm charge the government had dropped in the second superseding indictment, a motion that was pending when defendant pleaded guilty to that charge in the fourth superseding indictment. The court explained that, proceeding by a superseding indictment that eliminates charges, rather than by requesting leave of court for Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) dismissal of those charges, in not, without more, prosecutorial misconduct.The court also concluded that defendant's allegation that the government circumvented Rule 48(a) to induce his plea to Hobbs Act robbery is unsupported by the record. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice because he chose to plead guilty to Hobbs Act robbery knowing the government might reinstate the firearm charges omitted from the second superseding indictment. View "United States v. Rupp" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Ford under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), claiming that Ford terminated him twice and took other adverse employment action against him based on his asthma and scoliosis. The district court dismissed the FMLA claim as time-barred, and dismissed his ADA and MHRA claims on the ground that he exhausted his administrative remedies.The Eighth Circuit concluded that FMLA claims were sufficient to survive a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion. The court also concluded that plaintiff has cleared the exhaustion hurdle on his MHRA claim but has pulled up short on his three ADA claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Weatherly v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred in imposing the destructive-device enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(3)(B). The court also concluded that the error affected defendant's substantial rights because his Guidelines imprisonment range would have been lower without the enhancement and the error seriously affects the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing without the destructive-device enhancement. View "United States v. Zarate" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging six claims under Iowa law: (1) fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of contract; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets; and (6) breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff's claims arose from statements and actions that followed the sudden death of plaintiff's husband and involved defendant, the husband's business partner. The district court dismissed all claims.The Eighth Circuit concluded that plaintiff sufficiently state a claim for breach of contract as to the sale of life insurance to RK where plaintiff's accusations were sufficient to plead consideration in support of the contract. In this case, there was consideration for the agreement in that defendant was to receive an override commission upon sale of the insurance products and plaintiff agreed not to take her client's insurance business to another agent. The court also concluded that the district court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim as related to the RK insurance sale; plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty; and, to the extent plaintiff's claims for fraud or negligent misrepresentation related to the sale of life insurance products to plaintiff's client, the claims were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Meardon v. Register" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Assuming, without deciding, that the government knowingly intruded into the attorney-client relationship when officers seized privileged documents from defendant's cell, the district court concluded that defendant fails to demonstrate any particular prejudice or substantial threat of prejudice to his sentencing proceeding. In this case, the district court's offer of additional time to prepare for the sentencing hearing was an adequate shield from prejudice, given the relatively short-term deprivation of materials and absence of any evidence derived from the seized materials being used for sentencing. Therefore, there was no Sixth Amendment violation.The court also concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error when calculating defendant's Guidelines-recommended sentence by relying on his two prior Iowa convictions. The court explained that the convictions are counted independently because they are separated by an intervening arrest. Furthermore, the district court correctly considered defendant's prior convictions as controlled substance offenses for purposes of determining his base offense level. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court denied defendant's request for a downward variance, weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sawatzky" on Justia Law

Debtors' claims relate to matters stemming from the 2018 foreclosure sale of their home. Mila Homes, represented by its counsel, purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders denying debtors' motions for sanctions against Mila's counsel; to alter or amend the order denying the request for sanctions and for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law; and seeking to disqualify the bankruptcy judge. The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err by denying debtors' sanctions request based on counsel's statements on behalf of Mila Homes in the Mila Stay Motion. In this case, the bankruptcy court provided debtors with a hearing, listened patiently to their arguments, read methodically through the Bankruptcy Sanctions Motion, and addressed in detail why nothing in the Mila Stay Motion violated Rule 9011. Finally, the panel denied debtors' requests for judicial notice and awarded Mila's counsel $3,000 in sanctions from debtors. The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying debtors' fifth motion for disqualification of recusal and that debtors' appeal is frivolous. View "Scott v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for carjacking; two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting government exhibits at trial related to a photo on defendant's Facebook, Facebook conversations, and a video of defendant with a firearm while counting a large amount of cash. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the "intent" element of carjacking and the phrase "carried a firearm" in 18 U.S.C. 924(c); the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for carjacking, carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; and the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1) for possession of between 3 and 7 firearms, and in applying the carjacking offense characteristic under USSG 2B3.1(b)(5). View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law