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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for interstate stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A(1). The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering writings found in defendant's car in evaluating the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public. In this case, the writings were evidence of defendant's intent to commit the charged offense and tended to show that he presented a danger to the victim and the community, and there was no First Amendment violation.The court also concluded that the prosecution did not engage in misconduct when it referred to defendant by masculine pronouns at sentencing after he asked to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns. The court explained that defendant cites no authority for the proposition that litigants and courts must refer to defendants by their preferred pronouns, and the only cited authority is to the contrary. Furthermore, there is no showing that the use of pronouns affected the outcome of the proceeding. In regard to defendant's contention that the government disregarded his diagnosis of gender dysphoria, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. The record is clear that the district court sentenced defendant based on his conduct, not due to his gender or gender identity. The court further concluded that the government did not breach defendant's plea agreement by seeking restitution under both the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and the Violence Against Women Act; the interstate stalking statute is not an unconstitutional overreach of the federal legislature; the court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance claim; and the judge did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for recusal. View "United States v. Thomason" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court adopted the presentence investigation report finding that defendant was a career offender.The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's prior conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 609.05 qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary, concluding that State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn. 1981), does not support defendant's contention that there is something "special" about Minnesota's definition of aiding and abetting. Similarly, the other Minnesota cases to which defendant cites fail to show that there is something "special" about the Minnesota courts' application of section 609.05. View "United States v. Yackel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, alleging that the Rental Property Registration and Inspection Ordinance violated their constitutional rights, breached their consent decree with the City, and violated the Fair Housing Act. The Ordinance implemented uniform residential rental property registration, and a regular inspection program that is phased in accordance with the history of code violations on each property, requiring all rental properties in the City to register with the Permits and Inspections Division before leasing to tenants. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiffs' claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Ordinance does not violate Metro Omaha's constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the Nebraska Supreme Court's rules of construction, the court concluded that the plain text of the Ordinance does not authorize warrantless inspections of properties if consent is withheld. Furthermore, pre-compliance review before inspections does not apply here where inspections are permitted only if there is consent, a warrant, or court order. Finally, by withholding consent, property owners are not subject to criminal liability or prohibited from renting their property.The court also concluded that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court explained that the Ordinance provides adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and does not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement. The court further concluded that Metro Omaha fails to plausibly plead a breach of the consent decree, and that the Ordinance does not violate the Fair Housing Act. View "Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Omaha, Nebraska" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. The court concluded that there is no more support in the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) for adopting evidentiary hearing requirements for compassionate release motions than there is for mandatory hearings of any kind. The court explained that the statutory text all but refutes defendant's argument and the court declined to create such a requirement itself for an unambiguous statute under its supervisory powers. The court also concluded that the district court did not make an analytical error. In this case, contrary to defendant's argument, the district court considered whether his reasons for a reduction were "extraordinary and compelling" before ultimately denying relief. View "United States v. Vangh" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its credibility findings. In this case, plaintiff sustained a chemical burn to his left toe while power-washing the prison laundry area; the district court found credible defendant's testimony that she did not order plaintiff to clean up the chemical spill; and defendant's at-the-infirmary comment to plaintiff that he should have changed his shoes is not internally inconsistent or implausible because it is reasonable to suggest an inmate change wet shoes. View "Zahn v. Nygaard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's restitution award and special condition of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the mandatory minimum restitution award of $3,000 under amended 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(2)(B). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release which prohibited defendant from viewing, possessing, producing or using sexually oriented, sexually stimulating, or pornographic materials because the condition was not void for vagueness or unconstitutionally overbroad. View "United States v. Clemens" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration of his resentence under Amendment 782. In this case, the district court had granted defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 782 and reduced his term of imprisonment from 235 months to 199 months. Defendant sought a further reduction to 188 months and an evidentiary hearing to address the alleged conduct violations.The court concluded that, to the extent defendant's rights were implicated by the district court's decision to reduce his sentence, the district court provided him with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the district court provided an adequate explanation for its reduced sentence, specifically referencing defendant's alleged conduct violations while in custody and denying the motion to reconsider. In this case, the district court adopted the government's reasons why a 199-month sentence was warranted and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Beltran-Estrada" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's decision to deport and remove petitioner to Somalia and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's second-degree felony assault conviction is a particularly serious crime that bars statutory withholding of removal. The court also concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in finding that the particularly serious crime bar foreclosed petitioner's relief for withholding of removal under the CAT. Finally, the court need not address the likelihood that petitioner will be tortured because substantial evidence supports the IJ and the BIA's finding that his torture would not be directed by or acquiesced to by the Somali government. View "Jama v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. In denying both defendant's pro se motion for a sentence reduction and his counseled motion for reconsideration, the district court did not specifically address whether he is eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that it is unable to conduct meaningful appellate review of the district court's order. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

After plaintiff sustained injuries in an on-the-job accident, he filed suit against his former employer, Key Energy, and the company that manufactured the equipment that caused his injuries, Hydra-Walk, alleging products liability and negligence claims. Plaintiff suffered injuries when the Hydra-Walk system he was operating became unstable and overturned, crushing him.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, concluding that Hydra-Walk is not a third-party tortfeasor for purposes of determining whether plaintiff may pursue a remedy. The court explained that plaintiff's arguments to the contrary ignored that a merger occurred between Key Energy and Hydra-Walk, with Key Energy emerging as the only surviving entity and Hydra-Walk, ceasing to exist. Furthermore, the North Dakota Supreme Court has never allowed an employee to successfully recover against an employer where the employee was injured by equipment manufactured by another company prior to the company's merger with the employer and the injury occurred post-merger. Without further indication that the North Dakota Supreme Court would be receptive to the application of the exception, the court was unwilling to apply it, for the first time, to plaintiff's claims. Finally, the court concluded that the North Dakota Supreme Court would not apply the dual capacity doctrine to the exclusive remedy rule to plaintiff's claims. View "Scott v. Key Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law