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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's three Iowa methamphetamine-related convictions. The court held that petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that the Iowa court's application of the Jackson sufficiency of the evidence standard was both incorrect and unreasonable; petitioner's challenges to the state court's factual findings also fail; and petitioner procedurally defaulted on his argument regarding his conviction for lithium with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The court rejected petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady claim. Finally, the court held that petitioner's sentence did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Iowa courts have held the enhancements were to apply in tandem, and petitioner's Eighth Amendment argument was procedurally defaulted. View "Stephen v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Sheriff's Office appealed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on First Amendment wrongful-discharge claims brought by former Deputy Sheriffs Timothy Bruce and Robert Curtis. Bruce and Curtis's complaints alleged that Cole, the newly elected sheriff, discharged them for political reasons in violation of their First Amendment rights.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity, holding that political loyalty is an appropriate requirement for the job of deputy sheriff under Missouri law because of the closeness and cooperation required between sheriffs and their deputies in fulfilling overlapping duties. In this case, Cole did not violate Bruce and Curtis's constitutional rights. Consequently, the county is also entitled to summary judgment on the claims against it. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Curtis v. Christian County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs each brought an action asserting that the ALJ who denied their application for benefits was not properly appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly declined to consider the issue and affirmed the judgments. In these cases, none of the claimants raised the issue during the proceedings before the Social Security Administration and thus the district court properly concluded that they waived their argument. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that their constitutional claims need not be exhausted and that exhaustion of this particular constitutional challenge would have been futile. The court further explained that this is not one of the rare situations in which a federal court should consider an issue that was not presented to the agency. View "Davis v. Saul" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the BIA's final order of removal, rejecting petitioner's claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for deferral of his removal to Somalia. In this case, the BIA concluded that the IJ's ultimate finding that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Somalia depended on testimony that was unsupported by adequate foundation, relied on country reports that discussed human rights violations at too high a level of generality, and cited treatment of persons with HIV that either fell short of torture or was not sufficiently widespread to show that petitioner likely would suffer torture.The court held that petitioner's claim -- that the agency never had subject matter jurisdiction to order him removed because the Notice to Appear issued by the Department did not specify a time and place of his removal proceedings -- is foreclosed by Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). The court also held that the BIA's reasoning addressed the relevant evidence and provided sufficient justification for concluding that the IJ's finding was clearly erroneous. The court stated that it was satisfied that the BIA's decision accounted for all of the asserted risks in concluding that the IJ clearly erred. View "Abdi Omar v. Barr" on Justia Law

Over 25,000 life insurance policyholders filed a class action, alleging that State Farm impermissibly included non-listed factors in calculating Cost of Insurance (COI) fees assessed on life insurance policies. After the jury returned a $34 million verdict in the class's favor, State Farm and the named plaintiff appealed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment with respect to State Farm's appeal, holding that the phrase "based on" in the COI provision is at least ambiguous and thus must be construed against State Farm. Therefore, the district court did not err in construing the policy language in this manner and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on issues of liability. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to plaintiff on State Farm's affirmative defense of limitations. Furthermore, the court held that the district court did not err in certifying the class or in denying State Farm's motion to decertify the class. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying State Farm's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the alleged insufficiency of the damages models as evidence of damages suffered by class members. Finally, the court rejected State Farm's claims of evidentiary errors, and challenges to the judgment in favor of the named plaintiff.However, the court reversed and remanded with respect to the named plaintiff's cross appeal, holding that the district court erroneously denied plaintiff's motion for an award of prejudgment interest because the damages model does not include prejudgment interest for the entire time up until judgment. View "Vogt v. State Farm Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Burke, Ibrahim, and Kidd's convictions of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to strike references to the Minnesota anti-runner statute as surplusage; defendants' proposed jury instructions regarding the runner payments misstated the law and thus the district court properly declined to use it; the district court did not err by giving the final instruction that defined a scheme to defraud and, even assuming that the reference to omitting material facts was error, the error was harmless; and defendants' claims of prosecutor misconduct are rejected.Finally, the court affirmed Burke's sentence, holding that the district court did not err in calculating his advisory guideline range; the district court did not err by applying a two-level increase for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; and the district court did not erroneously make a finding that encompassed all elements of perjury. View "United States v. Kidd" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action against Trinity, alleging that Trinity violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim to the government, making a false statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, and retaliating against him.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Trinity's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the complaint failed to allege with particularity that defendant presented a false or fraudulent claim to the government or that it had made, used or caused to be used a false record or statement. In this case, relator's general allegations that Trinity's compensation scheme most likely resulted in the presentment of claims for payment or approval are insufficient; while there is no "presentment" requirement for a 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(B) claim, the plaintiff must plead a connection between the alleged fraud and the actual claim made payable to the government; because relator failed to allege with particularity that Trinity submitted a claim for payment to the government, he cannot establish that Trinity's allegedly false statements were "material" to any claim that was actually submitted; and relator's allegations are insufficient to establish that Trinity knew he was engaged in a protected activity. View "United States ex rel. Benaissa v. Trinity Health" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry after removal. Defendant makes a collateral attack on his 2008 removal, arguing that failure to provide him a Spanish interpretation of his Notice of Intent deprived him of the ability to challenge the government's decision to classify him as an aggravated felon, and thus depriving him of the opportunity to seek voluntary departure.The court held that, assuming that defendant was not an aggravated felon, he was not reasonably likely to have received preconclusion voluntary departure at the time of his removal in 2008. Therefore, defendant cannot show prejudice as required by 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(3), and the district court properly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. In this case, defendant failed to present compelling positive equities, like close relatives who are United States citizens or legal permanent residents, and defendant failed to reference a single case where an alien convicted of a felony sexual offense has received pre-conclusion voluntary departure. In light of defendant's serious and recent felony convictions and the lack of a sufficiently compelling counter-balancing factor at the time of his removal, the court concluded that it is not reasonably likely that he would have received pre-conclusion voluntary departure. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition to reduce defendant's sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce defendant's sentence due to the quantity of drugs, his obstruction of justice and his use of a firearm. Furthermore, the district court considered defendant's arguments and had a reasonable basis for its decision. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony drug offense pursuant to USSG 2K.2.1(b)(6)(B). In this case, defendant was carrying a loaded gun in his pocket, and had with him a backpack containing illegal drugs. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law