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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a fair and just grounds for withdrawal and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. In this case, the plea hearing transcript belies any contention that defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea, the record contained no evidence that defendant's medication had an effect on his competency, and the timing of defendant's attempted withdrawal was after the presentencing report was prepared. View "United States v. Eller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Westrock in state court after a stack of cardboard boxes fell out of a truck and caused him to fall to the ground, injuring his shoulder. After removal to federal court, plaintiff brought a negligence claim against defendants for damages related to his bodily injury. Magnum moved for summary judgment, alleging that the Carmack Amendment preempted plaintiff's state law claim.The Eighth Circuit held that the Carmack Amendment, which requires a carrier under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Act to issue a bill of lading for property it receives for transport and makes the carrier liable for damages resulting from its transportation or service, did not preempt plaintiff's state law claim for personal injury, because he was not a party to the bill of lading between his employer and the common carrier. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's holding to the contrary. View "Fergin v. Magnum LTL, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the district court did not err, plain or otherwise, in applying a criminal offender enhancement under USSG 4B1.1(a).The court held that when a defendant has more than four prior sentences that could be counted, the plain language of the Guideline gives the district court discretion to choose among them. Because there is no ambiguity here, the court held that the rule of lenity is not applicable. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, money laundering, and two counts of conspiring to launder money. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; the court was not convinced that the district court's drug-quantity finding was mistaken; and there was no error in imposing sentencing enhancements for defendant's role in the offense under USSG 3B1.1(a) and for committing the offense as a part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood under USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(E). View "United States v. Sainz Navarrete" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations before trial. In this case, defendant alleged that his attorney's performance was constitutionally deficient because counsel advised defendant to decline a plea offer based on a sentencing enhancement that any reasonable counsel should have known was inapplicable. The court held that the record did not conclusively refute defendant's claim at this juncture in the proceedings. Furthermore, the question is not developed on the question of prejudice. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Mayfield v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying the motion to continue the trial and to substitute counsel. In this case, there was no evidence of a sudden exigency or unforeseen circumstances which would weigh in favor of continuing the trial. Furthermore, the last-minute nature of defendant's motion, without some compelling justification, undermines the district court's interest in the orderly administration of justice. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Bradshaw" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution under the unable-and-unwilling standard. In this case, based on the country reports and her own testimony that she did not and would not contact the Mexican police, the court held that petitioner failed to show that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect her.Furthermore, even assuming petitioner's asylum application was timely, the court found no basis for granting her petition for review as she did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution. Finally, even assuming "Mexican females" is a cognizable social group and that petitioner is a member of both the "Mexican females" and "unable to leave" groups, the court found that she failed to meet her burden of proving future persecution and is thus not entitled to relief. View "Jimenez Galloso v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The court held that, even if the district court erroneously admitted evidence, the errors did not affect defendant's substantial rights as required by the plain-error standard because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Loomis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court's jury instructions did not constructively amend, or vary from, count one of the superseding indictment; the district court did not err in refusing to give buyer-seller and mere-presence instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the government to elicit testimony showing that defendant and his coconspirator knew one another when they were incarcerated in state prison and that the coconspirator helped defendant while the two were in prison; the district court did not err in applying the murder cross-reference under USSG 2D1.1(d)(1); and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Shavers" on Justia Law

Safeway and its proprietor filed suit against DPB and its owner, alleging federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and deceptive trade practices under Minnesota state law. Safeway claimed that DPB infringed two unregistered description trademarks -- "Rent My Party Bus" and "952 Limo Bus." The district court permanently enjoined defendants from using the trademarks or related domain names, keywords, or hashtags in connection with the advertisement, marketing, or sale of transportation services. However, the district court denied plaintiffs' requests for disgorgement of profits and attorney's fees.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's finding of no actual confusion and thus, no unjust enrichment, was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not erroneously place the burden of proof on Safeway to prove unjust enrichment; and Safeway bore the burden of proving DPB's sales. The court also held that the district court's findings, when taken in their totality, support its conclusion that Safeway is not entitled to a disgorgement of profits based on deterrence. In this case, the district court actually found that DPB held a good faith belief in its right to use the trademarks. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Safeway's request for disgorgement of profits, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Safeway's request for attorney's fees. View "Safeway Transit LLC v. Discount Party Bus, Inc." on Justia Law