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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed five defendants' sentences imposed after they each pleaded guilty to charges related to their involvement in a prostitution and sex trafficking conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a sentencing enhancement for exerting undue influence over a minor victim; for an offense involving the commission of a sex act or sexual contact under USSG 2G1.3(b)(4)(A); and for an offense involving the commission of a sex act or sexual contact under USSG 2G1.3(b)(4)(A). The court also held that Defendant Carter and Coleman's sentences were substantively reasonable and the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing them. Furthermore, the district court did not err in setting the base offense levels for Defendants Sarina, Ronzell, and Brown. The court found no error in defendants' sentences and rejected their claims to the contrary. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

After Map Kong was fatally shot by police in Burnsville, Minnesota, plaintiff filed suit against the city and the officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and official immunity.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity. The court held that, even if the facts showed that the officers had violated Kong's Fourth Amendment right, the law at the time of the shooting did not clearly establish the right. In this case, Kong ran toward bystanders with a knife against the officers' repeated orders to drop the weapon; there was at least one pedestrian visible on the body-camera footage; and a steady flow of vehicles through the parking lot meant that citizens might quickly approach or step out of their vehicles. Therefore, the court held that a reasonable officer would have believed the law permitted shooting Kong under these circumstances. The court also held that, even if the officers acted negligently, they did not intentionally disregard the police department's policy on crisis intervention for persons. Therefore, the officers are entitled to official immunity and the district court erred in denying summary judgment on the state-law negligence claim. Furthermore, the city is entitled to vicarious official immunity. View "Sok Kong v. City of Burnsville" on Justia Law

After movant filed a putative class action against SquareTrade, plaintiff filed a similar suit. Movant moved to intervene in plaintiff's suit, plaintiff and SquareTrade then reached a proposed class settlement, and the district court in plaintiff's case denied the motion to intervene.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although movant is situated so that disposing of plaintiff's action may impair his interests, movant is adequately represented by plaintiff, who seeks the same relief for the same claims as movant. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff settlement constituted a reverse auction. Therefore, the motion to intervene was properly denied. Finally, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for stay under the first-to-file rule based on lack of pendent jurisdiction. View "Swinton v. Starke" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and sentenced to 240 months in prison. The district court considered the sentence appropriate and subsequently denied defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not improperly calculate the advisory guideline range by finding that defendant was accountable for more than 30 kilograms of cocaine base; the district court did not clearly err in applying a base offense level of 38 given the testimony at trial and defendant's role as a supplier for the conspiracy; and the district court did not err by declining to respond explicitly to defendant's plea based on alleged post-sentencing rehabilitation. View "United States v. Sherman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 from 55 years to 40 years in prison. The court held that the Act applies to offenses, not conduct. Because the statute of conviction in defendant's case required only proof that he conspired to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and the Act reduced the penalties for a 50-gram conspiracy, he is eligible for a reduction.The court also held that, although the district court did not address defendant's argument regarding whether his sentence was based on post-sentence rehabilitation, resentencing was not warranted on this record. In this case, the district court implicitly rejected defendant's contention that earning a certificate in General Education Development, completing education and personal betterment courses, and other mitigating factors warranted a greater reduction. Furthermore, the district court concluded that a sentence within the advisory range was appropriate in light of several aggravating factors, and no further explanation was required. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

After an officer shot and killed Roy Lee Richards, Jr., his estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, holding that it has authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts as alleged by plaintiff and found or assumed by the district court constitute a violation of clearly established law.On the merits, the court held that the officer's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable where the officer did not have probable cause to believe Richards was not pointing the weapon at someone and wielding it in an otherwise menacing fashion. Rather, Richards had retreated. Furthermore, the officer's failure to warn before shooting Richards exacerbated the circumstances. The court also held that it was clearly established at the time that the officer's use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case. View "Cole v. Hutchins" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of the IJ's finding that his asylum application was time-barred and denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding that petitioner does not face persecution based on membership in a particular social group or political opinion in El Salvado and that the El Salvadoran government is not unwilling or unable to protect him. In this case, although the record supports a finding that Mara 18 gang members targeted petitioner for his access to the cooperative's boats, it does not support a finding of persecution based on his membership in the fishing cooperative; petitioner was not and will not be targeted due to this family membership; nor does the tragic death of his wife demonstrate that he faces persecution by Mara 18 gang members when he returns to El Salvador; petitioner had not been targeted by Mara 18 gang members as a political enemy; and the record does not show that the government was unwilling or unable to protect him if he returned.The court also held that petitioner has not established that the harm he fears qualifies as persecution and the BIA did not err in finding that he is ineligible for asylum; the BIA did not need to analyze petitioner's claim that he established changed or extraordinary circumstances bypassing the one year bar; and even if the BIA engaged in prohibited fact-finding in determining that petitioner failed to establish government acquiescence, the error was harmless. View "Prieto-Pineda v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Allina, for race and national origin discrimination as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the discrimination claims, holding that the record demonstrates that Allina considered plaintiff's race only to ensure that any corrective action was not based on racial discrimination; without direct evidence of discrimination, the court relied on the burden shifting McDonnell Douglas analysis; and, assuming plaintiff established a prima facie case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Allina's stated reason for terminating her was pretext.The court explained that nothing in Allina's Violence-Free Workplace policy or other policies prohibit Allina from treating some offenses as more severe than others and selecting a corrective action that it believes is proportional to the level of severity for the violation. In this case, Allina's response to plaintiff's grievance and the deposition of an Allina human resources director make clear that Allina believed that pushing a coworker was more severe than throwing a lab coat at a co-worker and that plaintiff's behavior justified a more severe punishment. View "Findlator v. Allina Health Clinics" on Justia Law

CRST filed suit against TransAm, alleging that TransAm wrongfully recruited and hired several long-haul truck drivers who were under contract with CRST. The district court granted TransAm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of CRST's claims with prejudice.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred with respect to the causation element but did not err with respect to the existence of a valid contract element, and that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the intentional and improper interference element. The court also held that the district court erred in granting TransAm's motion for summary judgment on CRST's unjust enrichment claim. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the drivers were not indispensable parties. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's order granting TransAm's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the district court's determination that the drivers are not indispensable parties to the proceedings. View "CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Transam Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography. The court held that the prosecutor's comments at sentencing did not breach the plea agreement where the government was not obligated to zealously defend the joint recommendation in the face of the sentencing court's hostility. Furthermore, even if error was assumed, defendant would not merit relief because he has failed to show "a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence had the government not breached the agreement." In this case, the district judge had already expressed doubt about the joint recommendation in light of the disturbing and concerning facts of the case. View "United States v. Zurheide" on Justia Law