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

On appeal, defendant argued for the first time that the district court failed to inquire about his past convictions, claiming prejudice because, by his interpretation of the First Step Act of 2018, he has only one conviction, not two.The Eighth Circuit first held that defendant did not waive his right to a 21 U.S.C. 851(b) inquiry. The court also held that, because defendant received and served "a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months" for two serious drug felonies—even though he served them concurrently—he has two, not one prior convictions. The court explained that a section 851(b) inquiry would not have changed his mandatory minimum, and a section 851(b) error is harmless. The court also held that the rule of lenity does not apply here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Corona-Verduzco" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of multiple drug and firearm offenses. In this case, a police detective received a reliable tip that defendant was selling crack cocaine in the Kansas City area and that defendant was driving a white Dodge Avenger. Police officers then stopped defendant when he committed a traffic violation. Defendant had a suspended driver's license and a blank rental-car agreement, and officers found a glove containing more than 50 grams of crack cocaine after the search of the car's hood.The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where defendant failed to establish that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search and seizure because he did not have lawful possession of the vehicle; there was no Confrontation Clause error in admitting the telephone conversations between defendant and two confidential informants; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for two firearm offenses. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner is removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.The court held that petitioner's conviction for obstruction of legal process in violation of Minn. Stat. Ann. 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) does not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. The court stated that there is a realistic probability that Minnesota would apply its obstruction of legal process statute to cases that lacked the requisite degree of scienter necessary to constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, the level of harm required to complete the offense is also insufficient to constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the BIA erred in finding otherwise and the court vacated the order of removal. View "Ortiz v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for sentencing relief under the First Step Act of 2018. In resolving the matter, the district court did not have the benefit of the United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019). Applying McDonald, the court held that defendant's conviction meets the three prerequisites of a covered offense, and defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider whether to exercise its discretion under section 404 of the Act and reduce defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Birdine" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and statutory immunity to a police trooper in an action alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and assault and battery under state law. The court held that it was reasonable for the trooper to believe that plaintiff was attempting to evade arrest by flight where the trooper knew that multiple officers had attempted to stop a white male riding a black motorcycle with no license plate for speeding and that the suspect had evaded arrest multiple times by fleeing at a high rate of speed. Furthermore, the court concluded that there can be little doubt but that a reasonable officer could conclude that fleeing from four other officers at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour in evening traffic demonstrates an extreme indifference to the value of human life. Likewise, because the trooper believed plaintiff had fled from no fewer than four other officers, traveling at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour in evening traffic, he could reasonably conclude that defendant posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and others. The court also held that it was not clearly established at the time that it constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to use a taser, without warning, against a suspect perceived as attempting to flee from officers. Therefore, the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 excessive force claim.The court also held that the trooper was entitled to statutory immunity under Arkansas law, because plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding malice. View "Boudoin v. Harsson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Arkansas's recent amendments to the requirements for new political parties to appear on the next general-elections ballot on a whole-ballot basis were unconstitutional.The court also held that, assuming a compelling interest exists, and taking the general boundaries established by precedent, a regime containing (1) a substantial signature requirement, (2) a limited rolling window for obtaining signatures, and (3) a deadline 425 days removed from the general election is not narrowly tailored to a generalized interest in regulating the integrity of elections. Although plaintiffs did not make an overwhelming showing as to the actual burdensomeness of the current regime on their own particular ability or inability to comply, the court held that their showing was sufficient and found no clearly erroneous determinations by the district court. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the injunctive relief. View "The Libertarian Party of Arkansas v. Thurston" on Justia Law

Inline filed suit against its competitor, Graphic, alleging antitrust and tortious interference claims related to the susceptor-packaging market. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Graphic, holding that the district court did not err concluding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Graphic fraudulently procured patents on packaging concepts and designs through false claims of inventorship of the asserted patents and fraudulently concealed prior sales of drawing sample sleeves. In this case, Inline cannot establish that Graphic committed knowing and willful fraud and thus his monopolization claim under 15 U.S.C. 2 failed. Because Inline did not evidence fraud related to Graphic's procurement of the asserted patents and its prior sales of drawing sample sleeves 50019D/F, it has not established why the same set of facts and evidence would render Graphic's patent-infringement litigation objectively baseless. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the sham-litigation claim.The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the discount-bundling claim because Inline failed to show that Graphic held sufficient monopoly or market power, and the district court adequately assessed the record and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Inline's economic expert's untimely market opinion. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Inline's exclusive dealing claim and tortious interference claim. View "Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a sentencing reduction to defendant under the First Step Act. Unlike the factual scenario in U.S. v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019), the district court here addressed its discretion under the Act particularly, conducting the appropriate second step contemplated by the Act. Therefore, the court found that although the district court erred regarding defendant's eligibility under step one, remanding on the basis of that error would be an exercise in futility. In this case, the district court was the original sentencing court and thus was uniquely positioned to consider the many factors necessary in exercising its ultimate discretion. Furthermore, the court explained that the district court's plain statement regarding its decision not to exercise its discretion under the Act closes the matter. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted defendants' petition for rehearing en banc of the panel's qualified immunity ruling. In this case, plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the City, the County, and officials, alleging violations of their constitutional right to privacy and of Arkansas tort law in connection with defendants' decisions to release information identifying them as victims of childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiffs are sisters and stars of the popular reality show 19 Kids and Counting. Plaintiffs were interviewed along with others as part of a police investigation into sexual misconduct by plaintiffs' brother. Reviewing de novo, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity and held that the asserted due process right to informational privacy was not clearly established at the time. The court reinstated the remainder of the court's opinion. View "Dillard v. Hoyt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for making a false material declaration before a jury. The court held that the district court properly excluded evidence of defendant's duress defense where she failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that she faced a present, imminent, and impending threat. She also failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that she had no reasonable, legal alternative to giving false testimony.The court also held that the district court did not err in applying a cross-reference under USSG 2X3.1, which resulted in a 20 base level offense for the underlying offense. Furthermore, the district court did not err by applying the four-level specific offense characteristic for the criminal offender's possessing the gun in connection with another felony offense. View "United States v. Myles" on Justia Law