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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. Deciding not to enforce the ambiguous appeal waiver, the court held that the district court did not plainly err by sentencing defendant to consecutive sentences of 360 months' imprisonment on each count, for a total custodial sentence of 720 months. The court also held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable and did not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity. In this case, the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in calculating the sentence and the district court distinguished defendant's case from the ones he cited. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a bag of drugs found at defendant's feet after he pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute five or more grams of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress, because the officers were talking to another individual and their act of shining a flashlight to illuminate defendant in the darkness was not a coercive act that communicated an official order to stop or comply.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a subpoena duces tecum, because defendant failed to identify the specific reports he sought in his motion. Finally, the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges, holding that there was no error in admitting texts and photos taken from defendant's phone. In this case, the evidence was authenticated and did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. Even if the screenshot of the text-message conversation at issue contained inadmissible hearsay, admitting them was harmless. Finally, the court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Insured Directors, plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action seeking to allocate defense costs among insured and uninsured parties, appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of National Union. The court affirmed and held that the Insured Directors' failure to carry their burden of showing entitlement to 100% coverage was the dispositive issue before the district court and was dispositive on appeal. In this case, the district court appropriately considered the only issue properly raised before it. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the Insured Directors failed to meet their burden of proving an allocation different from that proposed by National Union. View "Brand v. National Union Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), because he expressed his opposition to his attorney's assertion of guilt by pleading not guilty to both counts and taking his case to trial.The court held, however, that defendant's admissions were consistent with his attorney's statements to the jury that he was guilty of the possession with intent to distribute count. Furthermore, the record did not reflect that defendant made any express statements of his will to maintain his innocence. Therefore, defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel's concession of guilt violated his autonomy to decide the objective of his defense. The court noted that defendant may bring his Sixth Amendment claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court also held that there was no error in the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 based on obstruction of justice. Finally, the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in determining defendant's sentence, and his within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Felicianosoto" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's request for asylum and/or withholding removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered past persecution. In this case, although petitioner experienced the tragic loss of her father and brother, her family's disappearance without explanation did not rise to the level of persecution. Rather, the evidence established that her father and brother's kidnappings were the result of criminal activity in the area by persons seeking wealth.The court also held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that petitioner's stated fears of future persecution were not objectively reasonable where her family continues to reside in Honduras unharmed. Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of withholding removal. View "Mejia-Ramos v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant safety-valve relief after concluding that he had not truthfully provided all information and evidence he had concerning the drug-related offense. In this case, the government's evidence suggested that defendant had a larger role in the drug conspiracy than he admitted to, and he failed to establish that he did in fact provide complete information. View "United States v. Valquier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's successive motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that petitioner did not meet the requirements of section 2255(h)(2) for filing a successive motion, because Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015), did not undermine the court's conclusion on direct appeal that three of petitioner's prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under the force clause or the enumerated offenses clause. That Johnson might have eliminated a fourth conviction, or an unnecessary alternative ground for counting the three qualifying convictions, did not entitle petitioner to pursue a successive motion. The court therefore held that, without showing the retroactive decision in Johnson justified relief, petitioner could not challenge his sentence based on intervening decisions with not retroactive effect. View "Forrest v. United States" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court's grant of the Banks' motion for summary judgment challenging the validity of the other parties' liens and asserting the priority of its own lien in debtor's 2017 crops. In this case, it was difficult to determine from the record precisely what the bankruptcy court considered in reaching its conclusion that no genuine issues of material fact existed which would preclude it from granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment, or the analysis the bankruptcy court undertook. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)'s directive to specify the reasons for its ruling, or in the alternative, to reconsider the issue on the existence of the Solberg Farms partnership. View "Zaitz Trust, LLC v. Bremer Bank, NA" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that a highway patrol trooper used excessive force against her in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that the trooper did not violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional right when he threw or shoved her to the ground after she disobeyed his repeated instructions to return to his car, was uncooperative when he grabbed her and told her to turn around, and repeatedly tried to pull her arm away from his grasp. Furthermore, plaintiff had been drinking and driving erratically, and the dashcam video showed that their struggle took place on the shoulder of a dark highway, while several cars drove by. View "Murphy v. Engelhart" on Justia Law

DLC filed a 42 U.SC. 1983 action against defendant, the Director of the South Dakota Division of Banking, alleging that license revocation without a pre-deprivation hearing deprived DLC of its procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of absolute or qualified immunity and its decision that the quick action exception to a pre-deprivation hearing was not applicable.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because DLC failed to show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established. The court held that there was no procedural due process violation where DLC was on notice that the Division was investigating the lawfulness of its new loan product, DLC was afforded an opportunity to provide additional information addressing the Division's concerns, and the revocation order had no more of an effect on DLC's business than the simultaneously issued cease and desist order. View "Dollar Loan Center of South Dakota, LLC v. Afdahl" on Justia Law