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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against defendants as barred by the applicable Arkansas statute of limitations. In this case, plaintiffs possessed enough information in 2004 to put them on notice of any allegedly fraudulent conduct had they exercised any due diligence. Therefore, plaintiffs' tolling argument was without merit and their claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. View "Schmidt v. Newland & Associates PLLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Llamas and Parra appealed their convictions for drug trafficking crimes. Parra and another codefendant, Ramirez, appealed their sentences. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of Llamas's guilt was overwhelming and ample evidence also supported Parra's conviction; the district court did not procedurally err in calculating Parra's sentencing guidelines range and did not commit clear error in calculating the drug quantity on the evidence presented where officers seized over 445 grams of cocaine and two kilogram-sized wrappers from the stash house where Parra was staying; and the district court did not clearly err by denying Ramirez a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b) where he was involved in the conspiracy for at least three months and delivered drugs to Llamas on at least one if not two occasions. View "United States v. Ramirez-Maldonado" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his Facebook account. The court held that the affidavit established probable cause that defendant's Facebook account contained evidence of his possession of firearms as an unlawful drug user and the affidavit also contained evidence that defendant was found in a car emitting an odor of marijuana, with real marijuana in the trunk, during the traffic stop on December 7. Therefore, there was a substantial basis to support the issuing judge's determination of probable cause.The court also held that defendant failed to make the requisite showing that the warrant was invalid and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Franks claim without a hearing. Finally, the court held that whether the warrant was executed within 14 days of issuance of the warrant need not be resolved because any violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 would not call for suppressing the evidence, as there was no constitutional infirmity. Even if the warrant was executed one day late, probable cause continued to exist. Therefore, the search and seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Nyah" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions to suppress evidence and defendant's 57 month sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence gathered during an inventory search where the officers followed departmental policy in impounding and inventorying his vehicle, and an inventory search conducted according to standard departmental policies was reasonable. Furthermore, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence gathered during a search of defendant's vehicle where an officer observed crack cocaine in plain view inside the car before initiating the search.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range and the sentence was substantively reasonable. In this case, the district court allotted relatively greater weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense than to the mitigating personal characteristics of defendant. View "United States v. Dunn" on Justia Law

When confronted with disputed fact issues, a district court may rely on relevant hearsay evidence and other evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence so long as that evidence possesses sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute actual methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion as to the hearsay evidence defendant objected to; did not plainly err as to the unobjected-to testimony; and did not clearly err in regard to its findings of drug quantity, defendant's possession of a firearm, and his role in the offense.The court also held that the district court's denial of defendant's requested downward departure was unreviewable and the district court was within its discretion to rely primarily on the seriousness of the offense, defendant's extensive role in the conspiracy, and his criminal history. View "United States v. Angeles-Moctezuma" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's resentence after he was convicted of conspiring to retaliate against a federal witness. The court held that the district court did not err by applying an eight-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) to defendant's offense level for the witness-retaliation charge where he triggered the enhancement the moment he sent a threat by way of his friend. The court rejected defendant's contention that, under Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014), the government had to prove defendant's efforts were the singular cause of the threats, as opposed to incidental, tangential, or even contributing causes. In this case, the action required to apply the enhancement occurred when defendant dispatched his friend with the threatening message. View "United States v. Tywin Bender" on Justia Law

Applying plain error review, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that the officers' alleged violation of the knock-and-announce rule had nothing to do with their seizure of the gun, drugs, and cash in defendant's hotel room pursuant to their search warrant. In this case, the warrant was based solely on evidence obtained prior to the officers' entry. Therefore, the court explained that regardless of whether the officers violated the knock-and-announce rule, they still would have obtained and executed the warrant and discovered the aforementioned evidence. View "United States v. Diaz-Ortiz" on Justia Law

Any authority for judicial approval of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements in 29 U.S.C. 216 does not extend to review of settled attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order modifying the attorney fees in the parties' settlement agreement. The Eighth Circuit vacated the portion of the district court's judgment awarding the fees, holding that the district court lacked authority to review the settled attorney fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. In this case, the parties were entitled to settle the attorney fee issue and no law gave the district court authority to interfere with that unconditional right. View "Barbee v. Big River Steel LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Arkansas state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against his former parole officer and another police officer, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the officers' motions to dismiss, holding that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity. The court held that, even assuming the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to knock and announce their presence before entering plaintiff's dwelling, it was not clearly established in January 2015 that failing to knock and announce before entering the dwelling of a parolee was unlawful. The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that there was a robust consensus of persuasive authority on the question. View "Lane v. Boyd" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's motion to reopen. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen because petitioner failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. In this case, the IJ and BIA permissibly determined that petitioner's evidence of vague and unfulfilled threats failed to establish past persecution. Furthermore, the IJ and BIA also permissibly determined that petitioner's evidence of general crime and violence in Mexico failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his alleged involvement with the Christian anti-drug group. Finally, the court found no denial of due process in petitioner's earlier proceedings. View "Rivera-Guerrero v. Barr" on Justia Law