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

In 2001, Shire, a citizen of Somalia, was lawfully admitted to the U.S. as a refugee; in 2004, he obtained lawful permanent resident status. In 2006, Shire pled guilty to two drug offenses and was sentenced to 170 days' imprisonment. In 2008, an IJ ordered him removed under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). In 2018, Shire, still in the U.S., moved to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for asylum, citing changed country conditions.The IJ denied relief, noting that al-Shabaab came into prominence in 2006 and was using the same tactics in 2018 that it had been using in 2008. The IJ also determined that Shire failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of a different outcome, noting that Shire’s conviction for an aggravated felony rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Shire did not establish entitlement to relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture; the Somali government, while weak, was resisting al-Shabaab and would not acquiesce to the torture of its citizens; the number of deaths from al-Shabaab was low compared to the total population of Somalia; and Shire’s personal circumstances did not subject him to particular notoriety in Somalia. The BIA affirmed. In 2019, Shire was removed to Somalia. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review, finding those conclusions supported by substantial evidence. View "Shire v. Barr" on Justia Law

Ivers filed a lawsuit against a life insurance company. Judge Wright granted the company summary judgment on all but one claim. Ivers mailed Judge Wright a packet of court-related materials on which Ivers had written statements such as “I want my fucking money ” and “I am becoming a very dangerous person!!!” Before a scheduled bench trial, Ivers sent another letter. Ivers’s communications were forwarded to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). Ivers had previously threatened a state court judge and had been convicted of stalking; he was on probation. Deputy Hattervig spoke with Ivers, who lacked remorse. The USMS provided increased security at the trial. After judgment was entered in favor of the company, Ivers sent letters asserting that Judge Wright was biased and called the Chief Judge’s chambers, describing himself as a “walking bomb.” In interviews with USMS deputies, Ivers refused to retract his statements, remained visibly angry, and confirmed that he remained a “ticking time bomb.”The EIghth CIrcuit affirmed Ivers’ convictions for threatening to murder a federal judge, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B), and interstate transmission of a threat to injure the person of another, 18 U.S.C. 875(c), and his 18-month sentence. The court rejected arguments that Ivers' statements were privileged, that there was insufficient evidence suggesting that he made a true threat of harm, that the court erred in instructing the jury, and that cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial. View "United States v. Ivers" on Justia Law

Red Cloud’s son, D.K.E., was born on August 20, 2014. Red Cloud was 20 years old; D.K.E.’s mother, J.K.E., was 15. On October 11, the baby was found not breathing. The autopsy reported the cause of death as emaciation/dehydration. Red Cloud pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. 1111(a) and 1153. The PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 210-262 months’ incarceration. Neither party objected.The Eighth Circuit affirmed his sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release as not substantively unreasonable. The district court analyzed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors to justify the extent of the variance. The court properly considered an expert’s forensic interview of Red Cloud, indicating he has significant cognitive impairments that affected his ability to properly care for a newborn child and concluded that, on these facts, the need for additional deterrence was not “significant.” The district court noted that Red Cloud needed “support and help” going forward—not solely punishment for his role in the death of D.K.E. The court also noted Red Cloud had a history with substance abuse and imposed the term of supervised release in part so he could receive the resources to address his chemical dependency issues. The court expressly sought to balance the seriousness of the offense with Red Cloud’s specific personal history, characteristics, and limitations. View "United States v. Red Cloud" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 57 month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court also held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors. View "United States v. Cosen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 292 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the conspiracy involved between 3,000 and 10,000 grams of heroin and imposing a base offense level of 32; the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's application of the criminal livelihood enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(16)(E); the district court did not err in finding that defendant managed or supervised the criminal activity and applying a three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b); and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the mitigating factors and varying upwards. View "United States v. Denson" on Justia Law

Defendant Basic appealed his conspiracy conviction and the district court's drug-quantity determination, and Defendant Shaw appealed the drug-quantity determination and an obstruction-of-justice enhancement applied to her sentence.The Eighth Circuit held that the circumstantial evidence here is sufficient to establish that Basic voluntarily and intentionally reached an agreement with Shaw to distribute a controlled substance and, at the time of joining, knew the essential purpose of the agreement. The court also held that the district court did not err in calculating the drug quantity, and the district court did not err by imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 3C1.1. to Shaw's sentence for obstruction of justice based on her attempt to stifle a witness's incriminating testimony. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

LM filed suit against Newt Marine for breach of contract, alleging that Newt Marine wrongfully refused to pay premiums owed under three separate workers' compensation insurance policies.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Newt Marine's motion for summary judgment, because the premiums LM sought from Newt Marine were not merited by the terms of the policies. Therefore, the court held that Newt Marine did not breach its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies by refusing to pay. View "LM Insurance Corp. v. Dubuque Barge and Fleeting Service Co." on Justia Law

After Slawson entered into an oil and gas exploration and production agreement with TPC, TPC's successor-in-interest filed for bankruptcy. Slawson then filed a proof of claim seeking payment, pursuant to the Promote Obligation, on all wells in which TPC's successor-in-interest elects to participate. The bankruptcy court confirmed the reorganization claim, but gave Slawson leave to commence litigation to determine whether the Promote Obligation runs with the land and is therefore not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Slawson then filed a declaratory action against Nine Point, TPC's successor-in-interest after the bankruptcy.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Nine Point and held that the district court did not err in determining that the Promote Obligation is not a covenant running with the land because the obligation to make a payment did not directly benefit the land. The district court also did not err by determining that the obligation was not a real property interest or an equitable servitude under North Dakota law. View "Slawson Exploration Co., Inc. v. Nine Point Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to request a Franks hearing where petitioner has not established that the results of his proceedings would have been different even if his counsel requested a Franks hearing or challenged the warrant on probable cause grounds. The court also held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to move to challenge the validity of the search warrant and the existence of probable cause where the magistrate judge's alleged error, even if it is error, did not affect the validity of the warrant; to move to suppress the evidence found on petitioner's cell phones where counsel's failure to raise a novel argument does not render his performance constitutionally ineffective; and to file a motion to suppress his confession where counsel did not act outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. View "O'Neil v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for six drug-related offenses. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute a controlled substance resulting in serious bodily injury or death; distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death or serious bodily injury; and distribution of heroin arising out of the controlled buys set up by law enforcement in March 2016. The court denied defendant's motion to correct the record and his pro se motion to file a supplemental brief. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law