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

An acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and distributing methamphetamine. The court held that the district court applied the proper standard of proof and its finding of drug quantity, including the amount covered by the distribution count that defendant was acquitted on, was adequately supported. Finally, the district court did not err by imposing an enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, because defendant willfully testified falsely on material matters. View "United States v. Ruelas-Carbajal" on Justia Law

Lamar maintained and operated a billboard on land that it leased from R.E.D. After R.E.D. and Landmark executed an agreement under which Landmark agreed to pay R.E.D. in exchange for, among other things, the right to receive rent from Lamar, Landmark sued R.E.D. for breach of contract and sued R.E.D. and Defendant Van Stavern for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not err by excluding the testimony of defendants' expert witness where the expert's opinions were not relevant because they were not supported by facts in the record. Furthermore, the district court did not err by denying defendants' request for reconsideration, because the discovery deadlines had passed and defendants failed to offer a substantial justification for their delay. Finally, the court held that the damages award were not duplicative and affirmed the attorneys' fee award. View "Landmark Infrastructure Holding Co. v. R.E.D. Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States for negligent supervision and training. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered emotional and physical distress after the Veterans Administration (VA) sent him a letter erroneously stating that his corneal ulcerations were not service-connected.The court held that the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (VJRA) limits district courts' jurisdiction over suits involving a VA benefits determination. Therefore, the Board's determination that the February 2015 letter contained a "clear and unmistakable" error does not constitute an admission of negligence such that the district court would no longer need to review a benefits determination in deciding plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Newcombe v. United States" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Committee's appeal of the bankruptcy court's confirmation of debtors' voluntary reorganization plan. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that debtors' plan satisfied the equal-treatment rule and was proposed in good faith. In this case, the right to participate in the private placement was not "treatment for" a claim under 11 U.S.C. 1123(a)(4); the right to participate in the private placement was consideration for valuable new commitments; and thus the plan did not violate the equal-treatment rule. The panel also held that, despite any reservation the panel might have regarding the good faith question, it has not been left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. View "Ad Hoc Committee of Non-Consenting Creditors v. Peabody Energy Corp." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee. The Bank challenged whether the terms of the judgment were fulfilled in transferring debtor's ex-wife's interest to debtor.The panel held that there was no genuine issue of fact regarding debtor's divorce which resulted in the trustee's ability to rely upon the judgment as a purchaser for value. Even if the bank was successful on this point, it would not serve to repair the defect in its mortgage. In this case, the state court determined that debtor would retain the real estate that was already titled in his name, and the only interest the ex-wife held was her marital interest which vested upon dissolution of the marriage. View "Kunkel v. CUSB Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, the police chief, and the city administrator, alleging that plaintiff was terminated without due process and in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment free speech rights. The district court denied defendants' motion for qualified immunity.The Eighth Circuit held that, even if plaintiff were terminated in retaliation for his speech, defendants did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Furthermore, the disputed facts did not preclude summary judgment because the dispute did not affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. In this case, defendants could reasonably conclude that plaintiff was speaking solely as an aggrieved police officer and without constitutional protection. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to establish a deprivation of a liberty interest, because he did not show that he was stigmatized by the stated reasons for his discharge and that the statements were made public. Therefore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation, and the police chief and administrator were entitled to summary judgment. Finally, because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a deprivation of a property or liberty interest, his claims against the City also failed. However, this ruling did not necessarily resolve the city's liability in the retaliation claim. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Mogard v. City of Milbank" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for abusive sexual contact. Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he did not fully understand some of its consequences.The court held that defendant was specifically informed of the registration and restitution consequences of his conviction; defendant had fair notice that participating in sex offender treatment could be a condition of his supervised release; defendant's desire to avoid sex offender treatment was not a fair and just ground for withdrawing his plea for another reason: the district court did not order such treatment; and the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because defendant never offered attorney performance as a ground for withdrawing his guilty plea, remand for an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. View "United States v. White Owl" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to cause intentional damage to a protected computer, and to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court appropriately considered defendant's prior Minnesota aggravated robbery convictions as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Furthermore, defendant's Minnesota aiding and abetting second-degree burglary conviction were violent felonies under this circuit's precedents. The court also held that the voluminous and detailed evidence provided a legally sufficient basis for the district court to determine the appropriate amount of restitution. Therefore, the district court did not err by awarding $955,656 in restitution. View "United States v. Gammell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. The court held that defendant waived his argument that the district court erred in applying the sixteen-level increase for the loss amount and the two-level increase for an offense involving sophisticated means, because he stipulated to the adjustments in his plea agreement.The court also held that the district court did not err by denying a two-level reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility, where the district court found that defendant obstructed justice, and applied a two-level increase under USSG 3C1.1. Finally, the district court did not clearly err by declining to deem this an "extraordinary" case that warranted an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Kugmeh" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and award of attorney's fees, expenses, and costs to plaintiffs, in an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiffs, two individuals with hearing impairments and two organizations, filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, including mandated captions at all performances for which the Fox Theater received a captioning request two weeks in advance, publicity that captions were available along with a way to request them, and sale of tickets to deaf and hard-of-hearing patrons by non-telephonic means.The court held that the Fox did not provide meaningful access to individuals with hearing impairments and that plaintiffs' claims were not subject to the undue burden defense. In this case, one captioned performance per run of a show denied hearing impaired persons an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit as persons without impairments and denied them meaningful access to benefits the Fox provided. The court noted, however, that if the volume of captioning requests in the future rises to the level of an undue burden on the Fox, nothing precludes Fox Associates from bringing its own lawsuit and seeking to modify the district court's order in this case. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce its award of attorney's fees based on partial litigation success; in setting an hourly rate of $450; and in declining to reduce its fee award further for inefficiency. View "Childress v. Fox Associates, LLC" on Justia Law