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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's drug and firearm conspiracy convictions and his conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court also concluded that, although the district court erred by allowing an officer to impermissibly opine on an ultimate issue when she testified that the 1-9 Block Dipset Gang is a "drug trafficking organization," there was no plain error because defendant could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. View "United States v. Flax" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of XTO on plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and conversion. The court concluded that plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment on his breach of contract or conversion claims because he has not set forth sufficient evidence to allow a factfinder to find that the Turner No. 1 Well has extracted gas from the Viola Formation after 1982. In light of the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact whether the Viola Formation produced after 1982, the court need not reach the question whether plaintiff's claims are time barred under Arkansas law. View "Turner v. XTO Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 300 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder within Indian country. The court need not address whether the district court erred by departing under USSG 5K2.1 and 5K2.6, because the district court said that it would impose the same sentence by varying upward under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Furthermore, defendant did not object to the mistaken statements of fact at issue, and he cannot show a reasonable probability that they affected the outcome of the proceeding. The court also concluded that there is no reasonable probability that the district court would have arrived at a different sentence if the defense had clarified the identities of the minivan occupants and the family relationships during the hearing. The district court also discussed the section 3553(a) factors at some length and its explanation was adequate. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Shoulders" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court concluded that, even if defendant invokes the right to counsel, the law enforcement agent could still continue to make limited and focused inquires attendant to a legitimate police procedure if they are not likely to be perceived as calling for an incriminating response. In this case, the agent's statement fell into this category and he simply presented the search warrant to defendant, telling him what it allowed him to do. The court explained that it was, in other words, a "statement of fact" about a legitimate police procedure.However, the court concluded that the district court's decision -- admitting expert testimony about the typical behaviors of sexual assault victims and refusing to admit testimony about whether the victim had been sexually assaulted before -- improperly prevented defendant from presenting his complete defense and showing that an earlier sexual assault was the source of the victim's trauma. The court remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Zephier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the seizure of defendant was justified under the community caretaker exception where law enforcement received a report that a little girl's mother heard her daughter screaming and crying during a phone call with the girl's father; the mother also reported that the father had a firearm and threatened to kill anyone else who tried to come get the child; and, because defendant left his house before officers could respond, they were justified in effecting a traffic stop on him in order to conduct a welfare check on the girl. The court explained that the escalation of the encounter occurred only because defendant chose to escalate it by his own threatening conduct in response to the welfare check, and the officers' response was reasonable. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable where the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Halter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a protective frisk. The court concluded that the officer performed a lawful, protective search based on reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant may have been armed. In this case, the officer's targeted, protective search was sufficiently limited to dispel his concerns that the bulge under defendant's clothing may have been a weapon. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court also concluded that officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify defendant's traffic stop and the stop was not impermissibly extended. In this case, defendant was questioned about his erratic driving and his presence on someone else's farm; defendant offered implausible explanations and manifested excited speech and mannerisms; and the officer was justified in prolonging the stop in order to question defendant further and to call another officer to investigate whether defendant was under the influence of drugs. View "United States v. Marin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The court followed the precedent established in United States v. Hill, 820 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2016), and employed the circumstance-specific approach to the application of 34 U.S.C. 20911(7)(I). The court concluded that the district court used reliable evidence in finding the requisite facts by putting the government's proof through the rigors of the admissibility standards of the rules of evidence in a contested hearing. The court also concluded that section 20911(7)(I) is not void for vagueness as applied to defendant. View "United States v. Burgee" on Justia Law

Appellants, a class of sex offenders civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) pursuant to the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities, codified at Minnesota Statute 253D (MCTA), filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against various MSOP managers and officials as well as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.On appeal for a second time, the Eighth Circuit clarified the legal standard applicable to the conditions of confinement claims brought by these civilly committed individuals. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Count 3 of appellants' Third Amended Complaint after applying the "shocks the conscience" standard. However, the district court erred as a matter of law when it applied the "shocks the conscience" standard to Counts 5, 6, and 7, which appellants allege that they were subjected to punitive conditions of confinement. The court instructed the district court, on remand, to consider the claim of inadequate medical care under the deliberate indifference standard outlined in Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006), and to consider the remaining claims under the standard for punitive conditions of confinement outlined in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). View "Karsjens v. Lourey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, former president of Milestone Systems, for refusing to pay plaintiff his pro-rata share of "Post-Closing Amounts" paid by Kudelski pursuant to its April 2016 cash purchase of Milestone's outstanding stock.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant. Interpreting the plain language of the agreements at issue, the court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find that plaintiff was terminated by Kudelski without cause. In this case, the district court correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's failure to meet the requirements of Section 3 of the Post-Closing Amount was a material breach of an unambiguous term of the contract. Therefore, plaintiff was ineligible for payment. View "Hampton v. Kohler" on Justia Law