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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a related Brady challenge, and his request for a lighter sentence. In this case, a jury found defendant guilty of conspiring to launder money and conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where defendant cannot satisfy most, if not all, of the elements that he must to receive a new trial. The court explained that a review of the trial testimony -- which includes no question about a government witness's recent or near-trial drug or alcohol use -- disproves the argument that the witness lied on the stand about recent or near-trial drug or alcohol use. Furthermore, defendant cannot show that he is entitled to a new trial based on the witness's post-trial revelation that she testified while drunk and high. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and compelling, and even if defendant had blocked the witness's testimony, an acquittal seems unlikely.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding against a Brady violation where, even if the government concealed the witness's mental state, defendant cannot show that such evidence counts as material impeachment evidence. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a downward sentencing departure where the district court made an individualized assessment under the facts presented, considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors, and gave a reasoned basis for exercising its judgment. View "United States v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the categorical approach does not require a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate both that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense and that there is a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes people for the conduct that makes the state offense broader than the federal offense. Rather, the categorical approach requires a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense.In this case, the BIA erred in finding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal on the basis of his Florida conviction for possession of marijuana. The court explained that the Florida statute is unambiguously broader than the federal law referenced in 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(C), and this was all that petitioner was required to show under the categorical approach. Furthermore, because the BIA did not properly consider the IJ's alternative grounds for denying relief, those issues are not properly before the court. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the Speedy Trial Act does not permit exclusion of days caused by the court's own scheduling conflicts resulting from a crowded docket. The court explained that this constitutes general congestion under the Act and is not a legitimate ground upon which to exclude days under the Act. In this case, because the district court's reason for delay was not excludable under the act, the court will permit the district court to determine in the first instance whether to dismiss the indictment with or without prejudice by applying the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2). The court also weighed the Barker factors and affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's Sixth Amendment claim. The court assessed the prejudice to defendant and concluded that her anxiety alone was insufficient to demonstrate prejudice. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of heroin, fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl resulting in victim's death. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find that defendant distributed the fentanyl that caused the victim's death. In this case, defendant, a known drug dealer, delivered the two grams in two packages and defendant was aware at the time he left the victim's motel room that the victim had overdosed and was unconscious. Moreover, that the trace amount of loose powder on the desk was pure fentanyl—and not the three-drug mixture of the unopened package—does not disprove that defendant distributed the drug to the victim. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to construct an aquaponics facility. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err by giving a jury instruction that enabled a finding that only defendant committed wire fraud; the district court did not err by giving an explicit unanimity instruction where there was no genuine risk of the jury finding nonunanimously; and defendant waived his argument that the district court did not err by sua sponte individually polling the jury. View "United States v. Burns" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against the same debt-collecting law firm, SZJ. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of SZJ's collection activities related to alleged debts that plaintiffs owed to one of SZJ's clients, LVNV Funding.The court concluded that, because plaintiffs did not plead any additional facts to indicate that SZJ took anything but a good faith legal position in its prayer for relief, the complaints failed to state plausible claims that SZJ made false, deceptive, or misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e. The court also concluded that, even though SZJ failed to meet its evidentiary burden as set forth in the Amended Standing Order, it was entitled to bring a good faith claim to collect alleged debts and plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1). View "Smith v. Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd." on Justia Law

Azarax filed suit against defendant and his law firm, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Azarax claimed that defendant and his firm were negligent in their representation of Convey Mexico and that Azarax had claims against defendant and his firm as a successor by merger to Convey Mexico.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and agreed with the district court that Azarax was not a valid successor in interest to Convey Mexico. In this case, the summary judgment record established that the shareholders of Convey Mexico did not unanimously provide written consent for the merger with Azarax Holding, so the merger was not valid. Therefore, Azarax lacked standing to sue defendant and his law firm. The court modified the judgment to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. View "Azarax, Inc. v. Syverson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release, concluding that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing a new offense. In this case, although the district court acknowledged that there was no one piece of information that was the proverbial smoking gun, it found that a combination of all of the pieces of evidence established that defendant had participated in one or more bank robberies. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing defendant's sentence where the district court sufficiently considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. View "United States v. Staten" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint challenging Missouri's form to claim a religious exemption from mandatory immunizations for school children, as violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs, children enrolled or seeking to reenroll in Missouri public schools, have sincere religious objections to immunization. After plaintiffs refused to fill out Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Form 11, plaintiffs were disenrolled from school until they filed the form. Plaintiffs claimed that the form and the text of the form regarding "vaccine education" violated their rights to free speech, free religious exercise, and equal protection.The court held that Form II does not compel speech, restrict speech, or incidentally burden speech, and thus does not violate plaintiffs' free speech rights; does not require plaintiffs to engage in conduct against their religious beliefs; and does not make plaintiffs morally complicit in the production or use of vaccinations. Rather, Form 11 communicates neutrally to anyone considering opting out on religious grounds that the government discourages it, but the ultimate decision belongs to the parents. The panel explained that the form states the government's neutral and generally applicable position that immunization prevents childhood diseases, and thus should be required for school attendance. The court also held that plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts about forced immunization education, and that Form 11 does not target religious believers or violate their right to equal protection. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs have not stated a hybrid rights claim that requires strict scrutiny. View "B.W.C. v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute five or more grams of actual methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The court held that the officers had probable cause to detain defendant based on the registration violation alone and, given his earlier flight in the Nissan, it was not unreasonable for the officers to effectuate the stop by blocking the car in, or for the officer to ask defendant to step out of the car with his hands raised. Furthermore, defendant's initial failure to comply with the officer's commands and his furtive gestures, together with the car's earlier flight, made it reasonable for the officers to handcuff him. The court also concluded that, based on the smell of marijuana emanating from the car and the marijuana cigarette found in the passenger's jacket, the officers also had probable cause to search the entire vehicle for drugs and drug paraphernalia. After an officer had lawfully initiated the traffic stop and detained defendant, another officer's action in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a lesser-included instruction on simple possession of methamphetamine. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law