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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's special condition of supervised release imposed after he pleaded guilty to production of child pornography and to commission of a felony offense involving a minor. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by imposing a special condition that prohibited defendant from possessing or using a computer or have access to any online service without prior approval of the probation officer. The court reasoned that the special condition did not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary and it was not a complete ban on Internet access. Furthermore, there was ample evidence that defendant used his devices for activities beyond simply possessing child pornography, including producing child pornography. View "United States v. Perrin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor. Because defendant did not object to the fact of the tribal convictions or of any tribal arrests, or to the factual descriptions of the convictions and arrests as contained in the PSR, the court reviewed his claim for plain error. The court held that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable and the district court did not plainly err by relying on any information that was not otherwise available to the court or to the parties. The court also held that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance of 23 months. In this case, the district court did not give significant weight to the disparity between defendant's state and federal sentences, and properly relied on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Cloud" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted defendants' petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the previous opinion.The court reversed the district court's ruling that plaintiff had alleged sufficient claims to state 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against a police officer, the police chief, and the city. The court held that, in the absence of any intentional acquisition of physical control terminating plaintiff's freedom of movement through means intentionally applied, no seizure occurred. In this case, plaintiff was not ordered to stop and to remain in place, plaintiff's decision to remain with his companion during the companion's altercation with the officer rather than complying with the officer's lawful command to return to the sidewalk was that of his own choosing, and plaintiff was able to leave the scene following the discharge of the officer's weapon gives lie to his argument that the place of the officer's vehicle prevented him from doing so. The court also held that the claim of supervisory liability against the police chief and municipal liability against the city failed because there was no constitutional violation. View "Johnson v. City of Ferguson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assaulting a United States Postal Service employee in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1). The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err by preventing defendant from presenting a voluntary-intoxication defense because such a defense was unavailable to defendants being charged under section 111(a)(1) where assaulting a federal employee was a general intent crime. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.The court also held that Condition 5 of defendant's supervised release was broader than the condition the district court imposed orally. Because it was not clear from the sentencing transcript and other portions of the record exactly how long the district court intended the alcohol-prohibiting condition to apply or whether that issue was moot, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to clarify its position. View "United States v. Gustus" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Missouri state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent misrepresentation against St. Louis University. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his unsuccessful attempts to receive a Ph.D from the university in mechanical and aerospace engineering in four years.The court held that the educational malpractice doctrine barred all of plaintiff's claims. In this case, all of the statements plaintiff relied on in the student catalog and handbook were aspirational in nature. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff leave to amend his complaint when he did not submit a proposed amendment or include anything in his motion to indicate what an amended complaint would contain. View "Soueidan v. St. Louis University" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of social security disability benefits to claimant, holding that the denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence. The court held that the ALJ did not err in determining claimant's Residual Functional Capacity and did not err in determining that the medical records did not support the limitations stated by her treating physician. The court also held that the ALJ did not err by discrediting the physician's testimony to the extent that it exceeded the supported limitations. View "Despain v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an insurance coverage dispute over the allocation of a $6 million settlement in an underlying product liability action. The court held that the district court did not err in interpreting the Batch Clause Endorsement and its construction of the term "lot." The court rejected Federal's arguments to the contrary and affirmed the district court's ruling that AIG be paid $500,000 by Donaldson and be reimbursed over $2.76 million by Federal. View "National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Federal Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits to claimant. The court held that the agency was justified in reopening claimant's case based on new and material information; there was no due process violation and claimant had adequate notice that the reopened proceedings could result in a determination that she was not disabled; res judicata did not bar the Commissioner from revising a determination; substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that claimant was not disabled from 2012 onward; claims of witness and evidentiary errors rejected; the ALJ did not err in determining that claimant could perform her past relevant work; and there was no error in the ALJ's statement regarding claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) to the vocational expert where substantial evidence supported the omission of certain limitations from her RFC. View "Schwandt v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the sheriff and several other county employees, alleging various claims related to the treatment plaintiff asserted he suffered as a result of his political beliefs and associations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the sheriff on the First Amendment discrimination and retaliation claims. The court held that both claims suffered from the same fatal flaw because they lacked an adverse employment action. In this case, none of the complained-of actions, either together or separately, constitute an adverse employment action. View "Charleston v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Guzman and Morales' conviction for drug-related offenses. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop of a minivan where defendants were specifically identified as the occupants of the van before the stop and thus the officers had probable cause to believe that they were in the vehicle.The court affirmed Guzman's sentence and held that Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), was inapplicable in this case and the district court did not have to vary his sentence downward. The court rejected Morales' claims of evidentiary error and held that his sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. The district court correctly determined that Morales' base offense level, and did not err by imposing sentencing enhancements under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon, USSG 2D1.1(b)(2) for making a credible threat of violence; and USSG 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants. View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law