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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and defendant's sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. In regard to the motion to suppress, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings; the district court did not commit legal error by finding that the initial encounter between the detectives and defendant was consensual; a reasonable officer would believe that defendant had consented to the search of his luggage at a bus stop despite the existing language barrier based on defendant's responsiveness to questions and affirmative response when asked if his bag could be searched; the search of defendant's cell phone was also consensual; and the district court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and voluntary.In regard to defendant's sentence, the court held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court gave due consideration when weighing all the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the court found no abuse of discretion. View "United States v. DaCruz-Mendes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and defendant's conviction for one count of arson related to a fire at a trailer home.In regard to the motion to suppress, the court held that defendant was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda protections during a polygraph examination and subsequent interview. In this case, defendant came voluntarily to the justice center to take the test; he was read and signed the authorization form, which reiterated that he could refuse to take the test, decline to answer questions, end the test at any time, and have an attorney present; and defendant's movement was not restrained. Because defendant was not in custody, he was not entitled to Miranda protections of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. To the extent defendant asserts that his incriminating statements were involuntarily made, primarily due to his low cognitive functioning, the court agreed with the district court that defendant voluntarily provided the statements after the polygraph examination. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where defendant's incriminating statements, combined with the testimony of other witnesses, provided a sufficient basis for a jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Northern filed a quiet-title action in federal court against EOG over a dispute regarding the parties' competing interests in mineral rights in North Dakota. Northern and EOG both lease oil and gas rights, and their lessors litigated a similar matter in state court. The district court found that Northern was in privity with its lessor, holding that the lessors' case barred Northern's claims.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of EOG's motion to dismiss under principles of res judicata, holding that no privity exists between Northern and its lessor because Northern acquired its lease before the lessors' case. The court applied Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC, 915 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 2018), and held that the privity doctrine cannot be applied if the rights to property were acquired by the person sought to be bound before the adjudication. View "Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. v. EOG Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' second amended complaint brought under sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), against Wells Fargo and fiduciaries of Wells Fargo's 401(k) plan. This appeal arose out of the unauthorized-accounts scandal at Wells Fargo where Wells Fargo pressured and induced thousands of its employees to engage in widespread unlawful and unethical sales practices.The court held that the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead that a prudent fiduciary in defendants' position could not have concluded that earlier disclosure of negative information would do more harm than good to the fund. The court also held that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead a claim of breach of the duty of loyalty. In this case, neither of plaintiffs' claims for failure to disclose material information to plan participants about Wells Fargo's sale practices and conflicts of interests and actions of self-interest sufficiently alleged a plausible inference that defendants breached their duty. View "Allen v. Wells Fargo & Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Boechler's petition for review of a notice of determination from the Commissioner of the IRS based on lack of jurisdiction. Under 26 U.S.C. 6330(d)(1), a party has 30 days to file a petition for review. In this case, Boechler filed one day after the filing deadline had passed.The court held that the statutory text of section 6330(d)(1) is a rare instance where Congress clearly expressed its intent to make the filing deadline jurisdictional. The court also held that Boechler failed to demonstrate that the filing deadline is arbitrary and irrational. Rather, given the rational reasons for the calculation method, and Boechler's inability to identify any actual discrimination or discriminatory intent, the court held that the 30-day filing deadline from the date of determination does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, Boechler's petition was untimely and thus properly dismissed. View "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment after defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court upheld the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the district court did not err in finding there was probable cause where the affidavit was based on two highly detailed tips that were corroborated by police investigation. Furthermore, defendant has not made a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant's description of him as a tenant was false or based on a material omission or lack of investigation, and defendant has not shown that the alleged false statement or omission was necessary to the finding of probable cause. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Knutson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 180 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Hobbs Act by robbery, and one count of discharging a firearm during the commission of the robbery. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by imposing a three level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B3.1(b)(3) for a bystander's injury, which fell between bodily injury and serious bodily injury; the court found no reported decision holding that Application Note 4 precludes a USSG 2B3.1(b)(3) enhancement; and defendant's below-guidelines Hobbs Act sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion. View "United States v. Mays" on Justia Law

After a nitric acid manufacturing plant operated by Dyno emitted a cloud of nitric oxides engulfing workers, including plaintiff, plaintiff and his wife filed a negligence action against Dyno. The district court applied Missouri law and granted summary judgment to Dyno, concluding that Dyno did not owe plaintiff a legal duty of care because his injury was not foreseeable.The Eighth Circuit reversed and held that the record on summary judgment establishes that the question of foreseeability, as incorporated into the analysis of the legal duty of care under Missouri law, was not appropriate for summary judgment. Rather, the court held that the question of foreseeability is subject to varying inferences and is therefore an issue for a jury. In this case, although there was no evidence that emissions of NOx gas from the Dyno smokestack previously had caused injury to workers at the nearby Calumet site, a reasonable jury could find that the circumstances of the emissions in this case created some probability or likelihood of harm sufficiently serious that ordinary persons would take precautions to avoid it. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Scott v. Dyno Nobel, Inc." on Justia Law

AVF is sponsoring a ballot initiative to amend the Arkansas Constitution’s redistricting provisions and began circulating a petition during the COVID–19 pandemic. The Arkansas Constitution and statutes require canvassers to attach to the petition an affidavit affirming that all the petition signatures were made in the presence of the canvasser. The plaintiffs claim they cannot comply with these requirements during the pandemic; all are particularly vulnerable to COVID–19 because of age or medical conditions. They claimed enforcement of the requirements during the pandemic would impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights to express their position on a political matter. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the requirements.The Eighth Circuit reversed. The district court erroneously applied strict scrutiny; neither requirement violates the First Amendment. The court noted that the right to a state initiative process is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but is created by state law; states have considerable leeway to protect the integrity of the process. The Arkansas Code provides accommodations for individuals who require assistance signing an initiative petition and, even without those accommodations, there are simple ways to safely comply with the in-person signature requirement during the pandemic. The requirement imposes real burdens but not severe burdens, and serves important interests in preventing signatures from ineligible voters. View "Miller v. Thurston" on Justia Law

After arriving in North Dakota, Myers supplied Volz and Kramer with heroin. After their third purchase, they smoked the heroin and lost consciousness. Kramer was unable to awaken Volz. Paramedics were unable to revive Volz, who was pronounced dead. Myers was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846; distribution of a controlled substance and controlled substance analog resulting in death, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. 2; and distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. 2. Applying a two-level enhancement for possessing a firearm while distributing a controlled substance, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1), and a four-level enhancement for knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing as another substance a mixture or substance containing fentanyl or a fentanyl analog, section 2D1.1(b)(13), the court calculated a sentencing guidelines recommendation of life imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Myers' 360-month sentence, rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and an argument that the court improperly admitted a coconspirator’s statement. Any error in applying the sentencing enhancements was harmless. The court declined to consider arguments that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to strike a juror and for failing to timely alert the court to alleged contact between Volz’s family members and jurors, stating that the arguments were best left for collateral review. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law