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

Defendant challenged his 336-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography. The district court subsequently amended the original judgment to include the specific case numbers.The court held that the amended judgment did not disturb or revise legal rights and obligations because it did not make a material change. Therefore, the amended judgment did not trigger a new time to appeal. The court stated that defendant's notice of appeal was timely as to the amended judgment, but was untimely as to the original judgment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to find whether this is a case of excusable neglect or good cause under Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) and to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Defendant challenges, among other things, the district court's admission of dual-role testimony from an officer who interpreted recorded telephone calls as both a lay and expert witness.The court held that it does not categorically prohibit dual-role testimony and when that testimony is presented in a concise and differentiated way so that there is no confusion, it may be admissible. However, in this case, the testimony at trial was not presented in a concise and differentiated fashion. The court concluded that, while portions of the officer's testimony constituted admissible expert testimony, other portions did not. The court further concluded that the officer's improper testimony did not have more than a slight influence on the jury's verdict and was therefore harmless.The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that at least 100 grams of heroin was within the scope of the conspiracy and that defendant could have reasonably foreseen the extent of the conspiracy; the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a buyer-seller instruction was not warranted by the evidence; to the extent the prosecutor's closing arguments strayed from the evidence, the error was not so obvious as to undermine the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings; and a comment defendant contends disparaged his counsel did not rise to the level of plain error affecting his substantial rights. View "United States v. Overton" on Justia Law

POET petitioned for review of a letter from the Assistant Administrator of the EPA, contending that the letter embodies the EPA's final decision to deny POET's application to generate D3 Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) by producing cellulosic ethanol from corn-kernel fiber at its facility in Hudson, South Dakota.The Eighth Circuit held that the controversy regarding the EPA's alleged denial of the application is moot and dismissed the petition. In this case, POET has since filed a new, non-identical application to generate D3 RINs at its Hudson facility, which is currently pending for the EPA's review. View "POET Biorefining - Hudson, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of plaintiff's suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the VA provided negligent psychiatric care that resulted in her son's death. In this case, plaintiff concedes she was not the appointed trustee under Minnesota law and was only the next-of-kin at the time she filed a claim with the VA. Therefore, plaintiff failed to present the VA with her authority to act as the trustee as required by the FTCA. Because this was a jurisdictional requirement under the FTCA, the court held that the complaint was properly dismissed. View "Rollo-Carlson v. United States" on Justia Law

After unfavorable comments were posted about Test Prep, the company and its owner filed suit against several defendants, including Allnurses and its founder and a user. Test Prep alleged claims sounding in defamation, contract, and fraud, as well as other theories of liability asserting that Allnurses had induced users to post negative comments. The district court granted Allnurses' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the suit against the user for lack of personal jurisdiction.The court held that Allnurses was immunized under Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act from liability arising from the posts on the message board. The court held that Test Prep failed to plausibly allege that Allnurses was the "information content provider" of the posts at issue. In this case, the sum total of the complaint's factual allegations pleaded no more than a "sheer possibility" that Allnurses was wholly or partly responsible for creating or developing the posts made by the message board users. Furthermore, in the absence of any contractual relationship between Test Prep and Allnurses, there is no basis for the complaint's allegation that Allnurses had certain obligations to Test Prep including to take down defamatory or libelous posts. The court also held that an individual user plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a breach of the terms of the service contract; the district court properly granted judgment in favor of Allnurses on the promissory estoppel claim; claims of fraud and claims based on other theories of liability rejected; the district court did not err in granting the user's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and the district court did not err in granting Test Prep's motion to transfer the case. View "East Coast Test Prep LLC v. Allnurses.com, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2016, plaintiff filed a pro se damages action asserting equal protection and First Amendment claims arising out of his grievances stemming from his transfer to FPC Yankton where he was denied permission to possess an aviation manual he had been allowed to have at his prior correction facility. The district court dismissed all but one claim asserting that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when an FPC Yankton Correctional Counselor retaliated against him for filing grievances by denying him prison grievance forms. The district court interpreted the action as one brought against the counselor under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and granted summary judgment, concluding that a Bivens remedy should not be implied for retaliatory denials of administrative remedies.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to prove an essential element of a First Amendment retaliation claim -- that denial of a few grievance forms would chill an inmate of ordinary firmness from filing future grievances. In this case, the record establishes that the BOP's flexible four-step process allowed plaintiff to have his initial grievance decided on the merits and then to submit a second grievance that initially bypassed the informal resolution step, which was also decided on the merits. Furthermore, there is no evidence that other inmates would not be granted comparable procedural access to BOP administrative grievance remedies. View "Gonzalez v. Bendt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of murder-for-hire. The court upheld the jury's verdict rejecting defendant's entrapment defense where defendant did not produce sufficient evidence that the ATF induced him to commit murder-for-hire. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could find that the prosecution proved defendant was predisposed to commit this crime. In this case, the evidence established that defendant previously sought to hire someone to murder his ex-wife through a fellow inmate, he contacted the purported hitman, and entered into a written contract with the purported hitman. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new trial on the entrapment defense.The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where most of defendant's complaints do not relate to anything in the adversarial process in this case. Finally, the court declined to consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. View "United States v. Harriman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bank robbery. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress statements where the special agent attempted to give defendant a Miranda warning but was repeatedly interrupted by defendant, who was noncompliant and insisted on knowing the date of the robbery. In this case, defendant's alleged alibi was not prompted by interrogation.The court also held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the jury improperly heard testimony about his prior bank robbery convictions, because the district court gave a curative instruction and there was substantial evidence of defendant's guilt. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have sua sponte dismissed his indictment because the Government presented inaccurate testimony to the grand jury. In this case, the jury convicted defendant without the disputed evidence and the district court did not plainly err by failing to dismiss the indictment sua sponte. View "United States v. Smialek" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers and the city in an action alleging claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Minnesota state law after officers entered plaintiff's home without a warrant, seized her, and transported her to a hospital for a mental health evaluation.The court held that the officers acted reasonably when entering plaintiff's home and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers on plaintiff's warrantless entry claim. In this case, the warrantless search entry was justified by a reasonable belief there was a mental health concern and an emergency requiring attention. Furthermore, once inside the home, the officers did not expand the scope of their search. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting the officers qualified immunity on plaintiff's unreasonable seizure claim, because the probable cause standard was not clearly established and, as a result, a reasonable officer could have believed the decision to arrest plaintiff for an emergency mental health evaluation was lawful.However, the court now explicitly states that only probable cause that a person poses an emergent danger—that is, one calling for prompt action—to herself or others can tip the scales of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness balancing test in favor of the government when it arrests an individual for a mental health evaluation because only probable cause constitutes a sufficient "governmental interest" to outweigh a person's "interest in freedom." Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in granting the officers summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliatory arrest claim; the district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the city on plaintiff's Monell claims; and the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the officers on her state-law claims of false imprisonment, battery, assault, and negligence. View "Graham v. Barnette" on Justia Law

Travelex filed suit against defendant to enforce an alleged agreement restricting her ability to compete with Travelex by soliciting business from certain customers. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendant, determining that the purported agreement was unenforceable.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that summary judgment was not warranted. In this case, the district court concluded that the agreement was unenforceable because the 2008 agreement became a nullity when Travelex was acquired by Cover-More and defendant refused to sign a new agreement as a condition of continued employment and was terminated. The court held that defendant's refusal to sign the new agreement nullified the prior agreement. The court also held that defendant's alternative argument, that under New York law restrictive covenants may not be enforced when an employee is dismissed without cause, does not apply because the non-solicitation agreement is not unreasonable as a matter of law. View "Travelex Insurance Services, Inc. v. Barty" on Justia Law