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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of child pornography and possession of a visual depiction involving a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The court held that photographs of four life-sized dolls found in defendant's bedroom were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) where the dolls were relevant to overcome the defense by showing defendant's motive for acquiring and distributing child pornography.The court also held that admission of testimony from a witness about viewing child pornography with defendant was admissible under Rule 414, because twenty-year-old evidence of child molestation can be probative and admissible where, as here, it is similar to the charged offense. In light of the extensive evidence of child pornography seized from defendant's residence, other evidence about his sexual interest in minors and history of viewing child pornography, and the minimal likely impact of the traffic cone with the word "chimo" on it (short for child molester) when viewed in context of the entire trial, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial. View "United States v. Bartunek" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and completed his initial prison sentence, defendant violated the terms of his supervised release. The district court resentenced defendant to one year in prison followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to modify the conditions of supervised release.The Eighth Circuit first held that the district court had authority to rule on defendant's request for the district court to exercise its statutory authority to modify the terms of his supervised release, and there is no barrier to the court's review of the district court's judgment on appeal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to modify or eliminate the condition restricting his access to the internet, computers, and media storage devices. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining the conditions related to barring contact with minors. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to modify the condition prohibiting defendant from shopping or working at a business that derives a majority of its revenue from the sale of alcohol. View "United States v. Trimble" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 where petitioner raised two grounds for relief under the Sixth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree sodomy, and two counts of incest based on his sexual abuse of his stepdaughter starting when she was nine years old.The court held that the Missouri Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court's decision to exclude evidence regarding possible other sources for the victim's sexual knowledge was not contrary to or an unreasonable interpretation of federal law as clearly established by the Supreme Court. The court also held that trial counsel's failure to object to the expert witness's testimony did not deny petitioner effective assistance of counsel because the evidence was admissible and an objection would have been meritless. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the record contained all the facts necessary to resolve petitioner's claims, and that no further evidentiary development was required. View "Sittner v. Bowersox" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Ross and King's convictions and sentences for multiple federal charges arising from the carjacking, kidnapping, and murder of Jaime Patton. Jaime was abducted in his Jeep Patriot while leaving the hospital to buy his pregnant wife, who was about to give birth to their second child, a muffin and milk from a convenience store.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of kidnapping and carjacking that resulted in felony murder; a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 constitutes a "crime of violence" under section 924(c), and defendants were properly convicted under section 924(j) of causing death through use of a firearm in the course of a carjacking; the evidence was sufficient to support Ross's convictions for kidnapping, for carjacking resulting in death, for using a firearm in furtherance of a carjacking resulting in felony murder, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a text message between the defendants; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give defendants' requested jury instructions; defendants' combined mandatory minimum sentences on counts two, three, and five did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and King's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, Defendants Luna, Forthun, and Hussein were convicted of charges related to their membership in a recruitment-and-kickback scheme involving car-accident victims, a chiropractic clinic, and automobile insurers.The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Forthun committed mail and wire fraud, that both Luna and Hussein were his accomplices, and that all three entered into a conspiracy to defraud insurers. The court also held that the district court failed to consider the possibility of offsets to Forthun's sentence and to the size of the restitution awards. Therefore, the court vacated Forthun's sentence and remanded for resentencing. However, the court held that the forfeiture order stands because the reimbursement for all 500 patients were "gross proceeds" of the fraud itself. View "United States v. Luna" on Justia Law

Luxfer appealed the bankruptcy court's decision that payments to Luxfer were not protected by the ordinary course of business defense to a preference action.The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that it cannot make the determination of whether the bankruptcy court properly determined that preference payments did not qualify for the ordinary course of business defense without additional explanation from the bankruptcy court. Therefore, the panel remanded this matter to the bankruptcy court to set forth the method by which it adopted 47 days as the ordinary course cut-off or, alternatively, determine which preferential transfers were made in the ordinary course. Furthermore, the court held that the adversary complaint seeks not only avoidance of preferential transfers under Bankruptcy Code section 547, but also recovery under Bankruptcy Code section 550. In this case, the bankruptcy court did not address recovery under section 550, and the panel remanded for the bankruptcy court to do so. View "Dooley v. Luxfer MEL Technologies" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court held that the undisputed facts taken together establish a nexus between defendant and his wife sufficient to support the district court's finding of constructive possession. In this case, the couple's joint occupancy of the home and joint possession of the three firearms support an inference that defendant had knowledge of, and access to the pistol found in his wife's vehicle.The court also held that there was no plain Rehaif error that warrants giving defendant another opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea that he did not seek to withdraw at sentencing. The court explained that defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known of Rehaif. View "United States v. Caudle" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion by not addressing defendant's request that the sentence be made concurrent with an anticipated state sentence; the district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err by deciding not to explain why it did not vary downward when defendant did not request further explanation; the district court did not clearly err in finding that this was jointly undertaken criminal activity and therefore the total quantity of unsold drugs found in the car should be attributed to each participant; and any error in determining drug quantity for sentencing purposes was harmless. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

PCMA filed suit claiming that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Part D), preempt two sections of the North Dakota Century Code regulating the relationship between pharmacies, pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), and other third parties that finance personal health services. The district court determined that only one provision in the legislation was preempted by Medicare Part D and entered judgment in favor of North Dakota on the remainder of PCMA's claims.The Eighth Circuit held that it need not address the "connection with" element of the analysis because the legislation is preempted due to its impermissible "reference to" ERISA plans. In this case, the legislation is preempted because its references to "third-party payers" and "plan sponsors" impermissibly relate to ERISA benefit plans. Therefore, the court held that the North Dakota legislation is preempted because it "relates to" ERISA plans "by regulating the conduct of PBMs administering or managing pharmacy benefits." Finally, the court held that North Dakota waived its savings clause argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. Tufte" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of four state laws that regulate abortion: the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, the Sex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act, an amendment concerning the disposition of fetal remains, and an amendment concerning the maintenance of forensic samples from abortions performed on a child. On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), holding unconstitutional a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration in light of Chief Justice Roberts's separate opinion in June Medical, which is controlling, as well as the Supreme Court's decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019) (per curiam). View "Hopkins v. Jegley" on Justia Law