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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to receiving visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement by arguing for an obstruction of justice enhancement for defendant's pre-plea conduct, while at the same time adhering to its recommendation for an acceptance of responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1; the government's argument in favor of an obstruction of justice enhancement was not synonymous with an argument against an acceptance of responsibility reduction; and the district court did not err by applying a two-level increase for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 and by denying defendant an acceptance of responsibility reduction. View "United States v. Beattie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Eighth Circuit held that the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence where a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that the Guatemalan government was and would be unwilling or unable to protect petitioner against her daughter's father. Because petitioner failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she also failed to establish withholding of removal. Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of CAT relief because there was no evidence in the record that if petitioner were returned to Guatemala the government would torture her or be willfully blind to her torture at the hands of her daughter's father. View "Juarez-Coronado v. Barr" on Justia Law

After debtor sought Chapter 7 discharge, the trustee requested and received an extension to file a complaint objecting to the discharge after the trustee became aware of debtor's ties to business entities that were under a Florida receivership due to allegations of fraud. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting the trustee's request for an extension of time and its judgment denying discharge. The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by extending the deadline for the trustee to object to the discharge under Rule 4004(b)(2) without an evidentiary hearing. In this case, there was no clear error in its determination that six days would be insufficient for the trustee to investigate further and compose allegations with sufficient particularity to satisfy the applicable pleading standard. View "Hill v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Defendants Waits and Mills appealed their convictions and sentences for wire fraud related to their involvement with government feeding programs to children in low income areas. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendants' proffered jury instructions; the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a recording of a conversation between Waits and a coconspirator; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Waits' motion for a new trial; and the district court did not err in calculating Waits' criminal history score and in sentencing him. However, the court vacated and remanded the forfeiture order against Waits, because the order was based on the incorrect statute. View "United States v. Waits" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy and drug related crimes. The court held that the district court did not constructively amend the indictment when it allowed evidence of drug trafficking activity during September 2015, because the conspiracy continued through on or about that date and encompassed events that occurred reasonably near September 1; the evidence was sufficient to convict the Lopez defendants of conspiracy to traffic 500 grams of methamphetamine; sufficient evidence supported Defendant Hernandez's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; there was no obvious error in the jury instructions regarding the charges against the Lopez defendants; there was sufficient evidence to convict the Lopez defendants of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and, although there was an obvious error in imposing a sentence that exceeded sixty months in Defendant Moreno Lopez's case, the error was harmless because the same concurrent sentence of 151 months in prison was properly imposed on the other ten counts. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The state appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. The Eighth Circuit held that the Missouri Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court when it determined that the evidence was sufficient to support petitioner's first degree robbery and armed criminal action convictions. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Harden v. Norman" on Justia Law

On rehearing en banc, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging that defendant, plaintiff's boss, retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. In this case, plaintiff had run against his boss in a primary election and had publicly made statements about the sheriff's department and his plans to improve it. Defendant won the election and then terminated plaintiff's employment, claiming that plaintiff's campaign violated the department's rules of conduct.The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. As in Nord v. Walsh. Nord, 757 F.3d 734, defendant could have reasonably believed that plaintiff's speech was at least potentially damaging to and disruptive of the discipline and harmony of and among co-workers in the sheriff's office and detrimental to the close working relationships and personal loyalties necessary for an effective and trusted local policing operation. View "Morgan v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied Wal-Mart's petition for review of OSHA's citation for two purported violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act's regulation relating to bloodborne pathogens. OSHA alleged that Wal-Mart failed to comply with regulations pertaining to providing hepatitis B vaccinations to employees who voluntarily served on a Serious Injury Response Team (SIRT) at Wal-Mart's Alachua, Florida, distribution center.The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that the collateral duty exception did not apply in part because SIRT employees did not respond to workplace injuries "generally at the location where the incident occurred" as subparagraph b. of the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens Enforcement Procedures required. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to uphold Citation One where Wal-Mart did not provide four SIRT members with the third dose of the vaccine. Furthermore, substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to uphold Citation Two, and the ALJ did not err by finding that Citation Two was a repeat violation, where Wal-Mart failed to articulate through record evidence how the failure to offer the hepatitis B vaccine to the SIRT employees resulted in a different hazard than occurred from the failure to offer the vaccine to the retail store employees in 2012. View "Wal-Mart Stores East, LP v. Acosta" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of interference with commerce by threat or violence (Hobbs Act robbery), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, or plainly err in omitting a curative instruction, where the answer of the government's witness to a question on cross-examination was not so unresponsive as to warrant a mistrial. Furthermore, the witness's remark was only a small part of the evidence against defendant. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in declining to grant a judgment of acquittal, because Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as crime of violence predicate under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A), and Session v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), did not change this. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed an adverse order by the FAA's Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA) regarding property Southern leased to the Administration. Southern subsequently sold the property and surrounding land to Prairie Land, assigning its lease with the FAA to Prairie Land. After the FAA refused to vacate the premises, Prairie Land initiated a contract dispute with the ODRA.The court held that the FAA's continued occupancy of the property was permitted, and the ODRA did not err by concluding that the holdover provisions permitted the FAA to holdover on the property until either a new lease was agreed upon or it acquired the property in fee. Therefore, the FAA was fully within its rights to continue possessing the property. View "Prairie Land Holdings, LLC v. FAA" on Justia Law