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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence, holding that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. In explaining the revocation sentence it was imposing, the district court discussed defendant's history and characteristics, observing that his criminal history was "replete with violence and assaultive behavior," and assaultive incidents illustrated defendant's "impulsive and violent behavior." The district court also took into account and considered all the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors that apply in a revocation hearing, directly responding to the "disrespect" complaint in defendant's allocution. Therefore, the district court neither gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor nor abused its substantial discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

This case arose from a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Thomas Petters from 1994 to 2008 through his company, PCI. These appeals involve the Trustee’s separate claw back claims against defendants. The Trustee asserted claims under 11 U.S.C. 544(b)(1), which permits a trustee to "avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor . . . that is voidable under applicable law by a creditor holding an unsecured claim." In this case, the applicable law is the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (MUFTA).The Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the Supreme Court of Minnesota's controlling MUFTA decision in Finn v. Alliance Bank, 860 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 2015), and the Minnesota law of void contracts. Therefore, the court reversed summary judgment against Papadimos and Kanios. The court also reversed and remanded in the Boosalis case because the district erred in instructing the jury on the MUFTA elements of "good faith" and "reasonably equivalent value." In both cases, the court held that the district court erred in concluding that Minnesota rather than federal law governed the award of prejudgment interest. The court rejected defendants' other arguments. View "Kelley v. Boosalis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. Defendant alleged that, absent the district court's advice, he likely would have accepted the government's offer and received a lighter sentence. The government concedes that the district court plainly crossed the line as soon as it suggested, with a plea deal still on the table, that defendant could do better if he went to trial.The court held that there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have pleaded guilty but for the district judge's comments at the plea proceedings. In light of the circumstances, the court determined that the remedy that best balances the competing objectives is vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for resentencing before a different judge. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence as an armed career criminal after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court was entitled to treat the fact that defendant was convicted of the 1997 robbery offense as established where the government failed to produce the charging document. In this case, defendant did not object to the PSR's recitation that he was, in fact, convicted of the 1997 robbery offense.The court has held that a charging document can provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant was necessarily convicted of a violent felony offense, but no case has held that the government must produce the charging document to establish the fact of conviction. The court also held that precedent establishes that defendant's 1997 Missouri first degree robbery conviction categorically qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause. Therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Witherspoon" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to violate federal health care laws, as well as eleven substantive counts of health care fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict where defendant voluntarily and intentionally participated in a conspiracy with knowledge that it was unjustifiable and wrongful to receive kickbacks and defraud Medicare. In this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence of significant experience with federal health care program reimbursements, his attestation that he would comply with federal anti-kickback laws, and his collection of specimens without a doctor's orders, is collectively enough evidence to support a conclusion that he knew the arrangement with AMS was unjustifiable and wrongful when he voluntarily joined the conspiracy. View "United States v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's reduction of defendant's sentence to 277 months' imprisonment under the First Step Act. The court held that defendant's suggestion that the district court did not understand its First Step Act discretion is without merit where the district court expressly recognized and exercised its discretion to reduce his sentence. Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that the district court did not understand the scope of its discretion under the First Step Act. In determining the extent of the reduction, the district court placed emphasis on a proportional reduction based on defendant's advisory range under the current guidelines. Thus, the district court had a reasoned basis for its decision and did not abuse its substantial discretion.The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court's summary procedure violated the "complete review" provision of Section 404(c) of the First Step Act and deprived defendant of Due Process. The court explained that defendant had notice of the district court's proposed action and an opportunity to respond before the district court issued an order adequately explaining the basis for its decision. There was no constitutional procedural obligation to do more. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant relief under the First Step Act. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court violated his right to a complete review and held that the district court's conclusion that defendant's initial sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to address the essential sentencing considerations was sufficient to satisfy the court that the district court had considered the parties' arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own decisionmaking authority. Finally, the court held that Section 404 of the First Step Act does not require district courts to analyze the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in making their decisions. In this case, there was no abuse of the district court's substantial sentencing discretion in denying defendant relief under the First Step Act. View "United States v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former student at the University, filed suit against the Board of Trustees and several university officials, claiming that they violated his rights in a disciplinary action against him. This case stemmed from another University student's accusation against plaintiff for sexual assault. After the initial decision by the Title IX coordinator finding no misconduct, the other student herself publicly criticized the University's decision. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the University was under pressure and fearful of sanctions from the Office for Civil Rights, so it took steps harmful to him to alleviate and lessen the scrutiny that it was attracting from the other student's media blitz and protests. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.The Eighth Circuit held that the complaint stated a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that is plausible on its face. First, the allegations in the complaint support an inference that the hearing panel reached an outcome that was against the substantial weight of the evidence. Second, the panel's chosen sanctions are allegedly contrary to the ordinary disposition in cases of sexual assault by force. Third, plaintiff alleged that the University was under pressure on multiple fronts to find males responsible for sexual assault. The court held that these circumstances, taken together, are sufficient to support a plausible claim that the University discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex. However, the court held that plaintiff's due process claims against the University officials in their official and individual capacities were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. University of Arkansas - Fayetteville" on Justia Law

The Pharmacies filed suit against ESI, the nation's largest Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM), alleging breach of contract, attempted monopolization, and other claims. The district court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, holding that the Pharmacies did not state a claim for breach of contract because their claim was based on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. The parties had incorporated HIPAA and the HITECH Act into section 5.3 of their pharmacy provider agreements (PPA).The court affirmed and held that, textually, HIPAA does not authorize the Pharmacies to direct or control the use of their customers’ information and does not grant the Pharmacies power to enforce their customers' rights. Furthermore, the Pharmacies failed to allege a breach of contract based upon an alleged past or ongoing HIPAA violation. In this case, the Pharmacies failed to allege that ESI's use of their customers’ HIPAA-protected information to provide lower cost mail order refills lacked the express authorization of the plan sponsors and, thus, the implied authorization of the customers seeking to have their prescription costs covered by their plans.The court also held that the district court did not err in dismissing the Pharmacies' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing where the parties' agreements give ESI access to the Pharmacies' customer information and do not prevent its use for mail-order service dispensing. Finally, the court rejected the Pharmacies' claims of unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business expectancy and attempted monopolization. View "Trone Health Services, Inc. v. Express Scripts Holding Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for deferral and the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his immigration case. The court rejected petitioner's due process claim that the agency failed to consider all relevant evidence. The court also held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner had failed to show he was more likely than not to be tortured based on his Christian faith if removed to Bangladesh. In this case, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that petitioner failed to show that the Bangladeshi government acquiesces in torture, and substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that petitioner's evidence of forcible land evictions does not demonstrate the government's acquiescence in torture.The court also held that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen where plaintiff offers nothing, beyond conclusory statements, to support his claim that the newly-offered evidence was not available at the time of his hearing in 2018. Furthermore, the new evidence was unlikely to alter the IJ's decision. View "Ahmed v. Barr" on Justia Law