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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm while under felony indictment in state court. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court made a procedural error in calculating the advisory sentencing guideline range, holding that the district court did not err by applying a four-level increase under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6) for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. In this case, defendant had committed two separate incidents of domestic assaults against women with whom he had fathered children, and the district court found that the two incidents were an integral part of the course of conduct that related to defendant's unlawful possession of the firearm while under indictment. View "United States v. Paul" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' putative class action against First Federal and former directors of Inter-State. Plaintiffs alleged that Inter-State's merger with First Federal was inequitable because Inter-State had $25 million more than First Federal in excess capital. Plaintiffs claimed that the surplus should have been distributed to Inter-State's members instead of becoming part of the merged entity, and that the decision to merge should have been decided by a vote of Intra-State's members.The court held that the district court correctly concluded, based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that Inter-State's members did not have an ownership interest in its surplus. Even assuming a provision in Inter-State's charter was unique and that this was a case of first impression, the court held that Inter-State's members would not have an ownership interest in the $25 million surplus based on the provision's plain language. Therefore, without an ownership interest, plaintiffs have not stated a claim against defendants and the district court properly dismissed their claims expressly premised on an ownership interest in the surplus. View "Chase v. First Federal Bank of Kansas City" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that defendant's claim that the district court erred in concluding that defendant's prior Iowa robbery conviction was a crime of violence for purposes of USSG 4B1.2(a) was moot in light of the district court's alternative ruling that it would have imposed the same sentence under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors even if it had wrongly decided the "crime of violence" issue.The court was satisfied that the district court considered the alternative guideline range and imposed the 63-month sentence as an upward variance from this alternative range. Furthermore, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the serious aggravating factors, and the district court considered and weighed the mitigating factors. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the insurance company in an action brought by McCrossan, alleging breach of the crime insurance policy after the company denied coverage under the "Forgery" and "Employee Theft" insuring clauses. The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Company on McCrossan's claims for Stewart's loss, because Stewart did not meet the policy's definition of "subsidiary," and was not an insured. The court also held that the district court properly granted the Company summary judgment on McCrossan's claims for Blakely's loss, because the acts of Blakely's employee, as an unauthorized representative of Blakely, were not covered by the plain and ordinary meaning of the insurance policy. View "C.S. McCrossan Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release for the third time and sentence, as well as the reimposition of a life term of supervised release and new conditions of supervision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 24-month revocation sentence because it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and did not overlook a relevant factor, or commit a clear error in weighing relevant factors. Furthermore, the sentence was below the statutory limit and defendant's objection to the district court reimposing old supervised release conditions amounted to an improper collateral attack of the underlying sentence. Finally, the record supported the condition requiring defendant to submit to periodic polygraph testing, and there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of a special condition prohibiting the use or possession of audio/visual recording or producing equipment absent written approval of the probation office. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that inculpatory statements defendant made during his state parole revocation hearing related to possession of the firearm were properly admitted. In this case, defendant testified voluntarily under oath after being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent, and was warned that any statements he made could be used against him in the revocation proceeding and other criminal proceedings.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government's motion in limine to exclude the passenger's prior conviction. Furthermore, any error in admitting the evidence was harmless in light of defendant's admission that he knowingly possessed the firearm found in the car. Finally, although defendant should have been Mirandized before any custodial interrogation, the court held that his admissions were properly admitted at trial and rendered any Miranda violation harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant in an action brought by plaintiffs and Glow Hospitality alleging claims against defendant, an attorney, for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs also alleged a vicarious liability claims against defendant's law firm.Count I is premised on a factually-complex relationship and intertwined history and on allegations that defendant failed to disclose information, failed to investigate, made false statements to the state court, and, primarily, engaged in dual representation. The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment, because Glow failed to support Count I, which lies outside the jury's common knowledge, with expert testimony. Count II alleged that defendant breached his fiduciary duties to Glow by failing to conduct further investigation into Glow's ownership interests, failing to update his opinion letter to First National, making false representations in his affidavits to the state court, and negligently overseeing the operation of Glow. The court held that Minn. Stat. 544.42 applies to Count II, and Glow's failure to comply with section 544.42's affidavit requirements mandated dismissal of this claim. Finally, the court held that the fraud claims were property dismissed, summary judgment on the aiding and abetting claim was proper, and the vicarious liability claims failed. View "Sandhu v. Kanzler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against MDOC, the warden of OCC, and a former probation and parole officer at the OCC, alleging that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty as a result of statements made by the former probation and parole officer to a local state court. The district court granted the warden and the officer absolute and qualified immunity, and plaintiff appealed the assistance of pro bono counsel.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that plaintiff's complaint failed to contain sufficient allegations to overcome qualified immunity with regard to any statement the probation officer made to the state court before the court issued the order requiring plaintiff to be detained further. Furthermore, the complaint did not provide any other reason that either the warden or the probation officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. View "Sandknop v. O'Connell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of receipt of child pornography and appealed his sentence. The Eighth Circuit held that the restitution order survived the appeal waiver because the order was not authorized by the statute.However, the court vacated the district court's award of restitution to the victim, holding that the restitution order sought to compensate solely for losses occurring before the offense of conviction. Furthermore, the record did not indicate that defendant contributed to any continuing distribution. Finally, the court held that the prison sentence was within the scope of the appeal waiver; there was no provision in the waiver allowing defendant to appeal a sentence within statutory limits; there was no miscarriage of justice in his prison sentence; and the government's motion to dismiss as to the portion of the appeal addressing the prison sentence dismissed. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Suits over oil and gas leases on allotted trust lands are governed by federal law, not tribal law, and the tribal court lacks jurisdiction over the nonmember oil and gas companies. This appeal involved a dispute over the practice of flaring natural gas from oil wells, and at issue was the scope of Native American tribal court authority over nonmembers. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the tribal court plaintiffs and tribal court judicial officials and held that the district court correctly rejected the tribal court officials' argument that this suit was barred by tribal sovereign immunity.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because the oil and gas companies are likely to prevail on the merits. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that the oil and gas companies exhausted their tribal court remedies by moving to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and appealing the issue to the MHA Nation Supreme Court; the district court correctly concluded that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over the oil and gas companies; and the balance of the remaining preliminary injunction factors, along with the oil and gas companies' strong likelihood of success on the merits, showed that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction. View "Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr" on Justia Law