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

After the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court for modification of defendant's sentence to add three special conditions of supervised release, he appealed the grant of the petition.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant to proceed pro se at the modification hearing. The court affirmed the imposition of the mental health assessment condition and the search condition. However, the court vacated the financial disclosures condition as vague and overbroad. In this case, the government failed to tailor the proposed special condition to the employment circumstances that warranted modification of Standard Condition 5 and thus imposed an overbroad special condition that imposes a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary and is not the minimum extent necessary to protect the public. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

Sysco Minnesota filed suit against Local 120 under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) for violating their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Eighth Circuit held that Local 120 waived its right to the CBA's prescribed non-judicial grievance procedures, including arbitration. In this case, Local 120's failure to seek relief under the CBA’s prescribed grievance procedures in a timely manner caused the parties to complete all discovery and litigate the merits of Sysco Minnesota's breach claim. Furthermore, the district court did not err in finding that Local 120 violated the picket line clause in the CBA; Local 120 waived the right to engage in sympathy strikes; and the court was not persuaded that Local 120 did not authorize, participate in, or ratify the picket line. View "Sysco Minnesota, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 120" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Family in a declaratory judgment regarding American Family's duty to defend and indemnify Mid-American. American Family had issued a commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL) to Mid-America.The court held that American Family has no duty to defend or indemnify Mid-American, because Mid-American's alleged defective construction work in the underlying suit is not considered an "occurrence" in the policy. Rather, Lehenbauer's damages are all the normal, expected consequence of MidAmerican's allegedly shoddy work and were the foreseeable or expected result of that work as a matter of law. Therefore, the court held that Mid-American's work causing the damages at issue is not "an accident" within the meaning of the CGL under Missouri law. Because there was no "accident" in this case, there is no "occurrence" and no possibility of coverage. View "American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lehenbauer Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ozark in an action brought by plaintiff under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA).The court assumed without deciding that plaintiff satisfied her burden at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework in establishing a prima facie case of age and sex discrimination, and held that Ozark articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination. In this case, Ozark satisfied its burden by presenting evidence that the decisionmaker terminated plaintiff because of her "rudeness and insubordination which culminated in a meeting in which she behaved abominably." Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding pretext. The court also held that the fact that plaintiff's successor is male and twenty-two years younger than her cannot, by itself, create an inference that plaintiff was terminated based on her sex and age. View "Main v. Ozark Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to submitting false reimbursement claims for services and creating a materially false patient progress note. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by declining to depart downward under USSG 5H1.4 based on defendant's extraordinary physical impairment where he was diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma mycosis fungoides, a rare, chronic, and incurable cancer. The court explained that defendant's diagnosis no doubt confirms a very serious condition, but the government convinced the district court of the Bureau of Prison's ability to accommodate defendant's condition and provide appropriate medical care. The court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court was mistaken.The court also held that the district court did not commit any other procedural errors where the district court referenced the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and discussed several of them. Furthermore, defendant's 27 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant at the very bottom of the applicable guideline range. The court agreed with the district court that the guidelines recommended a longer sentence for defendant because of his higher criminal history category, since he had previously committed another similar crime. View "United States v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's determination that defendant committed two crimes involving moral turpitude. The court held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's conviction for the Minnesota crimes of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fifth Degree and knowing failure to comply with Minnesota's sex offender registration statute were crimes involving moral turpitude. The court also held that petitioner failed to exhaust his remaining arguments and therefore declined to consider them. View "Bakor v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that there was more than enough evidence for defendant's probation officer and other officers to believe defendant had a firearm on him. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. The court also held that defendant was in custody when he made both statements at issue. In this case, the "request for clarification" of defendant's statement that he had "something" in his car did not require Miranda warnings. Furthermore, because the bulge in defendant's pocket could have been a gun or other weapon that would have posed a danger to the officers and others, they could ask about it without the formality of Miranda warnings.The court joined its sister circuits in declining to recognize the innocent-possessor defense. The court held that the district court did not err in excluding defendant's proposed testimony that he had found the handgun in his car earlier in the day and was about to hand it over to his probation officer. The court reasoned that, even if defendant intended to turn over the gun (or the ammunition) to his probation officer, it is still a crime to knowingly possess it in the first place. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the district court considered defendant's mitigation arguments at sentencing; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. View "United States v. Becerra" on Justia Law

After Peabody was reorganized, three California municipalities filed suit against Peabody and more than thirty other energy companies for their alleged contributions to global warming. The bankruptcy court enjoined the municipalities from pursuing their claims against Peabody. The district court affirmed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that all the claims in the complaint are directed at Peabody's pre-bankruptcy conduct and are barred. The court rejected the municipalities' claim that the Environmental Law provision exempted their claims from discharge. The court held that their common-law claims against Peabody are "state or local equivalents" of "statutes, regulations and ordinances concerning pollution," holding that the bankruptcy court reasonably concluded that when the definition of Environmental Law mentioned state or local equivalents, it was talking about equivalents to the ten federal statutes listed, not equivalents to statutes, regulations and ordinances concerning pollution. Furthermore, the municipalities have not demonstrated that their common law claims are equivalent to the listed federal statutes. The court also rejected a second provision that the municipalities rely on for the survival of their claims, which exempts from discharge a governmental claim brought "under any . . . applicable police or regulatory law." The court disagreed with the municipalities' contention that, since their representative public-nuisance claim entitles them only to the equitable remedy of abatement, it is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. View "County of San Mateo v. Peabody Energy Corporation" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the government did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and defendant failed to offer any evidence showing that Iowa and federal prosecutors colluded. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the existence of collusion.The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where defendant was not unlawfully seized. In this case, prior to producing the marijuana cigarette, the officer did not ask defendant any questions but merely ordered him off the bus, particularly as the smell of marijuana alerted the officer that evidence of a more serious crime than failure to use a turn signal might be uncovered during the stop. Finally, the court held that defendant was not unlawfully searched when the officer conducted a pat-down search incident to arrest; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; defendant's Rehaif claim failed because there was sufficient evidence that he knew of his prohibited status; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable nor an abuse of the district court's discretion. View "United States v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County on plaintiff's claim of interference with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation against her for asserting those rights. Plaintiff's claims arose when she was put on administrative leave following an investigation into her involvement in her husband's sexual abuse of their children. The court held that plaintiff failed to show any prejudice from the County's delay in acting on her FMLA request or its failure to give her notice of her FMLA rights. The court rejected the FMLA interference claim, holding that plaintiff was neither asked to nor required to complete work-related tasks while on leave. Rather, the activities plaintiff was asked to do related to the underlying child-protection investigation, her FMLA request, and her employment status.The court also held that the County was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim where the undisputed sequence of events does not demonstrate a causal link between her FMLA request and the Board's decision to proceed with a meeting regarding whether to terminate her employment. In this case, the Board's actions were based on the maltreatment determination. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to the County. View "Thompson v. Kanabec County" on Justia Law