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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct petitioner's sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct adequate pretrial investigations. In this case, petitioner failed to identify any specific witnesses or evidence that counsel failed to uncover. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show that counsel's representation prejudiced his case. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that his new counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses, for convincing petitioner not to testify, for failing to object to or appeal the district court's answer to a jury question, and for failing to object to the district court's designation of petitioner as a career offender. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

After the City hired Henderson to design and install a bio-solids building, panels on the building's roof were damaged during a windstorm. Henderson filed a claim with Travelers, asserting that Travelers was required to cover the roof's damage under the City's builder's risk insurance policy with Travelers. The jury ultimately found in favor of Henderson, awarding damages and fees.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Travelers' motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the faulty workmanship exclusion does not include an anticoncurrent-cause provision; the windstorm and faulty workmanship operated in tandem to cause the resulting damage, and thus the windstorm and the faulty workmanship were two independent cause that contributed to the loss; and thus a reasonable juror could have found that faulty workmanship was not the sole proximate cause of the loss. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Travelers' motion for a new trial or remittitur, holding that the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the issue of proximate cause and the total award was not so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience. View "Joseph J. Henderson & Sons, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his responses to an ICE agent's two questions at the Treasurer's Office, because he was not in custody at the time of questioning.Although defendant was in custody at the ICE facility, the court held that an agent's questions were not custodial interrogation because the agent could not have known his questions were likely to elicit incriminating information regarding the two criminal charges that were eventually brought against defendant. The court noted that the Attorney General's regulations carefully distinguish between the warrantless arrest of an alien for a criminal violation of the immigration laws, and what is called the "administrative arrest" of an alien who is reasonably believed to be illegally present in the United States. The court agreed with the district court that the agent's questioning was a request for routine information necessary for basic identification purposes that is not interrogation under Miranda, even if the information turns out to be incriminating. View "United States v. Sanchez-Velasco" 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 facts underlying defendant's prior arrests were part of his history and characteristics under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and thus the district court could consider defendant's arrest records and the circumstances of those arrests. The court explained that the arrests were listed in the presentence report and gleaned from prior police reports. Furthermore, specific facts underlying the arrests may be considered for an upward departure and should be considered fair game for a variance where defendant did not object to them. The court also concluded that there is nothing here that suggested a corrected misstatement improperly influenced the district court's sentencing decision. Finally, the court held that the upward variance was not unreasonable in consideration of defendant's previous assaults, coupled with the facts underlying his arrest in this case. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. The panel held that debtor has not shown she is a person aggrieved by the bankruptcy court's order overruling her objection to the trustee's final report and thus does not have standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's order. In this case, although debtor questioned the accuracy of some of the information in the final report, she did not challenge in her objection, nor on appeal, the amount the trustee reported had been returned to her following dismissal of her case. View "Marshall v. McCarty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Dr. Pepper retaliated against him for complaining about racial discrimination at the company. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. Pepper, holding that, even if plaintiff made a prima facie case of retaliation, Dr. Pepper provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions based on plaintiff's performance under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. In this case, Dr. Pepper alleged that plaintiff had an inability to adjust to new management expectations, an unwillingness to be coached, and a refusal to sit through his interim performance review. The court also held that plaintiff failed to create a jury issue on pretext. View "Couch v. American Bottling Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the indictment on Speedy Trial Act grounds, holding that the indictment was returned within the 30-day statutory period and thus there was no violation of the Act. Furthermore, even assuming without deciding, that there is a "ruse exception," to the Act, the court held that it would not apply in this case because the facts show that no ruse occurred. In this case, immigration authorities undeniably had a lawful basis for their civil detention of defendant, and defendant failed to show that his detention by ICE was for the primary or exclusive purpose of furthering his ultimate prosecution.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion; defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and is therefore barred from collaterally attacking the underlying removal order; and the district court's finding that defendant's waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Saucedo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. The court declined to reach the issue of whether there is a "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act because, even assuming that the exception exists, the facts in this case do not show that any such ruse occurred. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss the indictment before denying it.The court also held that, even assuming without deciding, that there were fundamental procedural errors in the underlying removal proceedings, defendant has not met his burden in demonstrating actual prejudice—that but for those errors, there was a reasonable likelihood he would not have been deported. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disposing of this issue without a hearing View "United States v. Espinal" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for distribution, possession, and receipt of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior sexual abuse convictions as probative of his interest, intent, and motive for distributing, receiving, and possessing child pornography. The court also held that defendant's 210 month sentence is substantively reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant after relying on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Splettstoeszer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for participating in a methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy. The court held that the district court correctly designated defendant as a career offender based on his prior conviction for two felony drug crimes under Iowa Code section 124.401. The court held that section 124.401 is no broader than USSG 4B1.2.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant where there was no indication that the district court counted his methamphetamine addiction against him. Rather, the generous variance suggests just the opposite. Therefore, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Castellanos Muratella" on Justia Law