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

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner and her children and mother asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petitioners did not experience past persecution or face the requisite risk of future persecution on account of a protected basis. In this case, petitioner did not belong to the asserted particular social group of "women who are in abusive relationships in Mexico that they can't leave." Furthermore, substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that the mother was not persecuted on account of her familiar relationship with petitioner. Finally, the BIA did not err in denying withholding of removal where an alien who fails to prove eligibility for asylum cannot meet the burden of withholding of removal. View "Wences Godinez v. Barr" on Justia Law

A prior conviction under Iowa Code 124.401, which makes it unlawful to manufacture, deliver or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance, qualifies as a predicate offense warranting sentence enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the Iowa law of aiding and abetting is substantially equivalent to, not meaningfully broader than, the standard adopted by federal courts in applying 18 U.S.C. 2 and urged by defendants in these appeals. Accordingly, the district courts properly applied the sentencing enhancements in these consolidated cases. View "United States v. Kyle Boleyn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen in abstentia deportation proceedings from 1994. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on a claim of lack of notice, because he had previously admitted in his first motion to reopen that he had received notice and his attorney's admission was binding absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was not present here. Finally, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to sua sponte reopen the proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The government charged defendant with one count of involuntary manslaughter committed within Indian Country after her newborn baby died due to combined drug toxicity. The district court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the charged offense did not cover her or her conduct.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the baby falls within the class of victims protected by 18 U.S.C. 1112 regardless of whether he was or was not a human being when he sustained injuries in utero. In this case, although the plain language of section 1112 and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act plainly encompasses defendant and her conduct, the district court erroneously utilized a separate, unrelated, and uncharged statutory provision to exclude defendant's conduct from section 1112. The court remanded with directions to reinstate the indictment and noted that the district court may take up an as-applied due process challenge it did not reach. View "United States v. Flute" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of the city's motion for summary judgment and denial of debtor's motion for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding alleging that the city violated the automatic stay by refusing to release the warrant for her arrest and refusing to release her driver's license without payment of the fine.The panel held that debtor failed to identify any post-petition action by the city that would be in violation of the stay. The panel agreed with the bankruptcy court that the city was not required to issue a compliance letter regarding debtor's driver’s license. Therefore, debtor failed to show that the city's inaction regarding the compliance letter has somehow led to her inability to obtain a driver's license. Finally, the panel agreed with the city that the reference in the bankruptcy court's order to a driver's license being property of the estate was taken out of context by debtor and was not a factor in the bankruptcy court's decision. View "Edwards v. City of Ferguson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to passing counterfeit securities. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining the intended-loss calculation and in determining the amount of restitution. In this case, trying to rent a jet without intending to pay for it satisfied the definition of an intended loss, and the district court reasonably estimated the victims' ultimate losses. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after conditionally pleading guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the officer's mistaken belief that the red vehicle at issue was stolen based upon his misreading of the "hot sheets" was objectively reasonable. The court also held that the officers did not impermissibly extend the stop, and thus the observation of narcotics and the firearm, coupled with the inability to identify the vehicle's owner, provided the officers with probable cause to tow the vehicle and perform an inventory search. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the officers had a legally permissible basis to tow and search the vehicle, revealing the firearm that gave rise to the charge against defendant. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The court affirmed and held that, whether it followed the line of authority that categorizes a district court's consideration of an allegedly improper or irrelevant factor as a procedural error, or consider defendant's argument as a substantive challenge, there was no sentencing error. In this case, the district court did not base its sentencing decision on the contested allegations of the PSR, but on its decision to impose an upward variance on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Therefore, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ayres" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his firearm conviction. The court held that defendant's underlying offense of armed robbery involving controlled substances categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(3)(A) even when it is committed by means of intimidation. Therefore, the court held that petitioner's underlying offense categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A), and his conviction and sentence under section 924(c)(1)(A) are not unconstitutional. Furthermore, because section 924(c)(3)(A) applies in this case, the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Davis does not afford petitioner the relief he seeks. View "Kidd v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of an attorney's fee award after taxpayer prevailed in a deficiency proceeding before the United States Tax Court. The tax court granted the award, but denied taxpayer's request for an enhancement to the hourly fee rate. The court held that the tax court did not abuse its discretion by declining to find the presence of a special factor warranting an enhanced fee rate and by reducing the number of hours worked during the post-trial process. Furthermore, the tax court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the requested fee award was unreasonable. View "Tolin v. Commissioner" on Justia Law