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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he was convicted of three counts of receipt and distribution of child pornography and one count of failing to register as a sex offender. The court held that evidence from electronic video surveillance equipment (EVSE) did not sufficiently influence the jury, and any error in admitting the evidence was harmless. In this case, there was significant non-EVSE evidence supporting his conviction. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant's prior child pornography conviction under Federal Rules of Evidence 414 and 404(b). View "United States v. Stefanyuk" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court held that the officer had probable cause for his search and the gun found under the floor mat was admissible. In this case, defendant was duplicitous at the traffic stop a few hours before his arrest and his sudden reach toward the floormat as the officer was escorting him from the vehicle both tend to support a finding of probable cause. View "United States v. McGhee" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of fraudulently registering the personal vehicles of St. Louis residents in Illinois to avoid Missouri tax. The court held that the method of calculation resulted in a loss amount that was a reasonable estimate of loss to the State of Missouri. The district court correctly applied the eight-level sentencing enhancement for a loss amount greater than $95,000 but less than $150,000 under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(E); the loss amount was well supported by evidence; and the loss amount was not clearly erroneous.The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by adopting the government's proposed loss amount when it imposed the restitution award. However, the record did not establish with the required clarity that the district court exercised its independent judgment in reaching its decision to impose the two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Harmon" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application of withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability that he would suffer persecution in Mexico on account of his membership in the de la Rosa family. Therefore, the court found that the IJ and the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's application for withholding of removal.Because the IJ and the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner failed to show a likelihood of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group, the court need not address the argument that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that petitioner failed to establish that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect him. View "De La Rosa Garcia v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Police Chief Kitch and Officers Karr, Bland and McIntosh. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's official capacity claims and that Kitch was entitled to summary judgment in his individual capacity.The court also held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that Karr violated his rights by conducting a traffic stop of his vehicle; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that Karr violated his rights by extending the traffic stop for a drug-dog sniff because, at the time of the traffic stop, it was not clearly established that the extension of the stop was unconstitutional; Karr and Bland were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that they violated his rights by searching his truck; McIntosh was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim related to his arrest on a stolen property charge, because it was beyond genuine dispute that, when McIntosh submitted his probable cause statement, he was aware of facts warranting a belief that plaintiff had possessed stolen property; and the district court did not resolve the issues surrounding plaintiff's claim that Karr violated his rights by arresting him for violating a city obstruction ordinance. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded for consideration of the obstruction claim. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Sours v. Karr" on Justia Law

On remand from the district court in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 136 S. Ct. 1642 (2016), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of attorney's fees, expenses, and costs to CRST. The court reviewed the district court's detailed order in which it exhaustively explained its rationale for why certain claims brought by the EEOC were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Christiansburg standard.In this case, the district court reaffirmed its prior findings that the EEOC's failure to satisfy Title VII's presuit requirements satisfied the Christiansburg standard for the claims dismissed on this basis; the district court exhaustively explained why 71 of the claims dismissed on summary judgment were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; and the court rejected the EEOC's argument that it reasonably sought relief for the remaining women on summary judgment based on the pattern-or-practice method of proof. Furthermore, the court rejected the EEOC's arguments that CRST failed to satisfy the Fox standard regarding fees attributable to frivolous claims. View "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court struck down the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557, 2563 (2015), petitioner moved for permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate the life sentence imposed on count 3.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err on remand by applying the concurrent sentence doctrine. The court held that, in light of the life sentence imposed on count 2 and the sentencing court's specific statements that petitioner remain in prison for life, there was no error in the district court's conclusion that the resulting sentence for the murder conviction would remain the same even assuming petitioner had set forth a valid Johnson challenge. Furthermore, the district court was not required to order a full resentencing; petitioner was not prejudiced; and petitioner's clemency argument lacked merit. View "Oslund v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to strike the government's 21 U.S.C. 851 notice of sentencing enhancement alleged in the indictment. The court held that defendant's California conviction qualifies as a "felony drug offense" notwithstanding the fact that it was later redesignated as a misdemeanor. The court reasoned that, because defendant was convicted of a felony and sentenced under California law in 2008, his California conviction was "final" at the time of his federal drug offense in 2017. To the extent defendant raised other arguments as to why the California conviction may not serve as a predicate offense, the court held that those arguments were foreclosed by the court's reliance on the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016). View "United States v. Santillan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the employer's motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee, alleging gender-based discrimination. The court held that summary judgment was appropriate where, assuming his assertions were true, none of plaintiff's purported direct evidence established the required specific link between his termination and gender-based animus; plaintiff failed as a matter of law to provide sufficient evidence to give rise to a jury question on the issue of disparate treatment; and any error in declining to consider plaintiff's direct evidence argument was harmless. View "Rinchuso v. Brookshire Grocery Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of identification documents. In this case, ICE officers determined that defendant was not the suspect that they were in fact looking for, but the officers learned during an investigatory stop that defendant had been previously charged with an immigration offense.The court held that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the initial suspect had committed a crime and that the suspect lived at the residence where defendant was arrested because the suspect listed the address as his residence and had a car registered to the address. Furthermore, it was not unreasonable for the officer to mistake defendant for the actual suspect in light of the circumstances. Therefore, the officer's mistake was not objectively unreasonable and he had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. View "United States v. Lopez-Tubac" on Justia Law