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

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Bel-Nor's Ordinance 983, which restricts the number of signs displayed on private property. The court held that Ordinance 983 is a content based restriction that is not narrowly-tailored to achieve the compelling government interests of government safety and aesthetics. The court held that the ordinance is also facially overbroad; plaintiff was likely to succeed on his First Amendment claim; and the district court erred in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Willson v. City of Bel-Nor" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with the felony offense of drug trafficking. In this case, the weight and packaging of the marijuana, combined with defendant's statements and his firearm possession, constitute sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that he committed the felony offense of drug trafficking. Furthermore, the firearm was found in close proximity to the drugs. The court also held that the district court did not err by denying defendant a third level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Brockman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit joined the BIA and a unanimous chorus of other circuits that have considered and rejected the argument that a notice to appear that, like petitioner's, does not contain the time and place of removal proceeding is not valid. The court rejected petitioner's claim that a court utilizing such a notice fails to obtain subject matter jurisdiction at its inception and so the entire proceedings and any subsequent removal order are invalid.Determining that it had jurisdiction over the petition for review, the court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen. The court explained that the BIA need not list every possible argument for and against its decision, and it need not write an exegesis on every contention. Furthermore, the BIA's opinion in this case makes clear that it heard and considered petitioner's arguments. Finally, the court rejected petitioner's due process and equal protection challenges. View "Ali v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to St. Luke's in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that the hospital interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court held that plaintiff's case consists of an unpersuasive argument of temporal proximity combined with her subjective belief that she was being treated differently and a few stray comments that she perceived to interfere with her FMLA rights. The evidence did not undermine or even raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding St. Luke’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination: her work performance. Therefore, plaintiff failed to present a submissible case of retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights. View "Beckley v. St. Luke's Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial and sentence of three months in prison for harboring or concealing a person from arrest. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant assisted the criminal by providing shelter while he was hiding from law enforcement and that she intended to prevent his discovery and arrest. In this case, defendant's delay in allowing the officers to enter and search the house, regardless of its duration, together with her false statements to investigators, support a finding that she intentionally harbored and concealed the criminal. The court rejected defendant's alternative contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Finally, it was not a miscarriage of justice to convict her when a jury acquitted a codefendant. View "United States v. Waloke" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of four counts of capital murder and sentenced to death on each count. The court held that trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence related to petitioner's childhood abuse, fetal-alcohol exposure, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In this case, counsel satisfied his obligation under Strickland v. Washington and his decision not to interview distant family members was reasonable. Counsel conducted a thorough investigation and reasonably decided to pursue a theory of imperfect self-defense. Furthermore, counsel's decision to hire an expert to evaluate the effect of petitioner's abusive childhood on his mental health was reasonable in the circumstances and counsel did not fail to act while potentially powerful mitigating evidence stared him in the face. View "Kemp v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a fire seriously damaged the insureds' home, the insurer paid for their total property damage and then brought a diversity action against Entergy, alleging that the utility's equipment caused the fire. The insurer alleged subrogation claims for damages in excess of the amount paid for the damage.Although the district court erred in determining that the insurer did not have standing, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Entergy's motion for judgment as a matter of law because the insurer failed to prove that the insureds were made whole either before or during this lawsuit. Therefore, a reasonable jury could not have found that the insurer proved an essential element of its subrogation claim. View "EMC Insurance v. Entergy Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that probable cause supported the issuance of a warrant to place a GPS tracker on defendant's vehicle; the district court did not err by denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing or his request to compel the disclosure of the identities of confidential informants and tipsters; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the crimes; and the district court properly admitted statements from defendant's recorded post-arrest phone calls as evidence of the direct consciousness of guilt. View "United States v. Bradley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to the receipt, possession, and attempted distribution of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not procedurally err by imposing a life term of supervised release, because the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors to both defendant's terms of imprisonment and supervised release. Furthermore, the district court's brief explanation of defendant's sentence, including the term of supervised release, was not plainly erroneous.The court also affirmed the special conditions of supervised release, holding that the prohibition on possessing pornographic materials, restrictions on possession of a computer or like device, and restrictions on creation of a social media account on sites which allow access by minors or exchange of sexually-explicit materials did not result in greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. Although the district court plainly erred by failing to make any effort to support the challenged conditions (or any other special condition) with individualized findings, the reasons for the challenged conditions were sufficiently evident from this record. View "United States v. Carson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a video of defendant wearing clothing worn by the person who committed the armed robbery, because the evidence was relevant and tended to make it more probable that defendant committed the robbery. Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted as relevant non-character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 402. Likewise, still photos showing defendant wearing the clothing were properly admitted. The court also held that a Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Consequently, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. View "United States v. Conner" on Justia Law