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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of child obscenity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1) and (d). The court held that the statute of conviction was neither overbroad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The court applied the Miller test and held that the visual depictions defendant possessed were obscene. View "United States v. Buie" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, petitioner sought review of DHS's reinstatement of prior orders of removal and challenged the dismissal of related complaints that were filed in federal district court. The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review in the lead case and affirmed the district court's judgment in the consolidated cases.The court held that the district court properly dismissed petitioner's lawsuits in federal district court, based on lack of jurisdiction, where he sought review of DHS's reinstatement of the removal order and to compel DHS to adjudicate a motion to reopen; the relevant statute stated that a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of the order of removal; the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's arguments concerning the validity of the underlying removal order; substantial evidence supported DHS's decision to reinstate the removal order, because petitioner conceded his identity, the existence of the removal order, and that he unlawfully reentered the United States; and there was no error in the IJ's determination that petitioner failed to show that he was eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. View "Lara-Nieto v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wisconsin Central in an action brought by plaintiff for unlawful retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for the information defendant's expert acquired in preparation for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in blocking a deposition of Wisconsin Central's counsel about her conversations with other employees and whether plaintiff's employment record caused his termination; the information was privileged; and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the protective order.The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Wisconsin Central because plaintiff did not make a prima facie case of retaliation under the Act. In this case, plaintiff failed to raise an inference of intentional retaliation prompted by any of his three specified acts, and no reasonable factfinder could infer a retaliatory motive. View "Smith-Bunge v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine. For the reasons set forth in United States v. Escalante, No. 18-3033, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for retesting of drug quality and quantity and for approval of expenditures.The court also held that the district court did not err in considering defendant's previous conviction for aiding and abetting distribution of methamphetamine as a controlled substance offense for the purposes of the career offender sentencing enhancement. Furthermore, the district court did not err in finding that defendant's prior conviction for accomplice to second-degree battery to be a crime of violence for the purposes of the career offender enhancement. Finally, the district court did not err by denying defendant a minor participant or minimal role reduction, and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that, assuming the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for retesting of drugs and for approval of expenditures without holding an ex parte hearing, the error was not prejudicial because defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that retesting would have aided in his defense and that the denial of retesting resulted in an unfair trial.The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the district court considered and weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by varying downward and imposing the sentence. View "United States v. Escalante" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for receiving and distributing child pornography. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the district court did not err by giving a willful blindness jury instruction; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to vary further downward to the extent advocated by defendant. View "United States v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior convictions, because they were probative on the questions of knowledge and intent; the district court's decision to limit the evidence and to provide a cautionary instruction justified its conclusion that the probative value of the evidence on issues such as knowledge and intent was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing references to the fact that he was serving terms of supervised release and probation at the time of his arrest under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; and the district court did not err by denying a two-level, acceptance-of-responsibility sentence reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a). View "United States v. Monds" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of debtor's motion to avoid a judicial lien. The panel upheld the bankruptcy court's determination that the value of the real estate at issue was fixed on the date that the petition was filed and thus the pre-restoration value of the property was the appropriate value to use in the avoidance analysis. The panel rejected the creditor's claims of unjust enrichment and laches. View "Waltrip v. Sawyers" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and death sentence for first degree murder. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by trying defendant with his co-defendant; there was no error in submitting the grave-indifference-to human-life jury instruction where nothing in the federal death penalty statute says that the jury can consider a defendant's mental state once; there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that he killed the victim in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; and claims of error regarding mitigating factors and evidentiary errors were rejected. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The court held that defendant's prior third degree sexual abuse convictions under Iowa law were prior convictions under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2); a state court order correcting the 2011 Iowa Judgment and Sentence which was entered after defendant committed his federal offense in 2014 but before he was indicted did not affect the state court jury's finding of guilt; and the Corrected Judgment and Sentence, entered in 2016 long after defendant committed this federal offense, was not based on constitutional invalidity, trial error, or actual innocence. In this case, the correction did not alter the legality of the conviction or signify that defendant was innocent of the crime. View "United States v. Jepsen" on Justia Law