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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of an unregistered firearm. The court held that defendant's failure to file a timely pretrial motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) foreclosed each of the defective indictment issues he sought to raise on appeal.Although defendant acknowledged that the district court appropriately rejected his Speedy Trial Act claim, he asked the court to adopt a new rule giving preference to the defendant's assertion of his speedy trial rights over the wishes of his attorney and the court. The court declined to do so and explained that this rule would be contrary to the plain text of the statute and the court's prior decisions. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence regarding the drugs seized at the time of defendant's arrest because the evidence was clearly intrinsic to the charged offense. View "United States v. Fogg" on Justia Law

After Mako acquired a historic building with intentions to restore it using state and federal historic tax credits, it retained the law firm of Winthrop & Weinstine to draft the tax credit bond. CRBT then retained Winthrop to represent it in connection with the building tax credit project. CRBT, through counsel Winthrop, later sought to foreclose on the building. Mako retained separate counsel and moved to dismiss the complaint and to disqualify Winthrop. The district court denied both of Mako's motions and awarded $5.2 million to CRBT.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err by denying Mako's motion to dismiss the action for failure to join Chevron as a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1); the district court did not err in calculating the money judgment; and, although the district court erred in failing to disqualify Winthrop as counsel for CRBT, the error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for money damages; reversed the district court's denial to disqualify counsel in any future proceedings; and, as proceedings continue and the Winthrop law firm has a conflict of interest necessitating removal as counsel, remanded for further proceedings. View "Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Co. v. Mako One Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court agreed with the BIA that the harm petitioner suffered -- being threatened by a phone call and letter from a gang demanding money -- did not constitute past persecution. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's ultimate finding that petitioner failed to prove that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution if removed to El Salvador.The court also held that the BIA did not err in ruling that petitioner failed to prove past persecution on account of her membership in two particular social groups: Salvadoran female heads of households and vulnerable Salvadoran females. Petitioner's claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT likewise failed. View "Blanco De Guevara v. Barr" on Justia Law

Former employees of Honeywell, who retired before age 65 during the terms of Honeywell's 2007 and 2010 collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), filed a class action alleging that Honeywell's announced plan to terminate early retiree healthcare benefits at the end of 2017 breached the CBAs and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), because those healthcare benefits vested when each class member retired.The Eighth Circuit agreed with the Sixth Circuit and held that the Supreme Court's decision in CNH Indus. N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761 (2018), was controlling in this case. Under Reese, the court held that plaintiffs' retiree healthcare benefits were not vested as a matter of law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pacheco v. Honeywell International Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order reducing defendant's term of imprisonment in light of Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court impermissibly reduced defendant's sentence below his amended guideline range. The court held that any reduction below 110 months was inconsistent with the policy statement in USSG 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) and thus unauthorized by 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). In this case, it was not irrational for the Commission to avoid undue complexity and litigation by adopting a uniform limitation on reductions tied to the amended guidelines range. Accordingly, the court remanded for a resentencing consistent with the limitation that the sentence must not be less than the 110-month minimum of the amended guideline range. View "United States v. Heaton" on Justia Law

After defendant appealed his conviction and sentences for several offenses, the Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence in the first appeal. On remand, the district court sentenced defendant to 380 months in prison. The court affirmed, holding that the district court's statements and colloquy with defendant adequately explained the basis for his sentence where the district court considered the relevant statutory factors, discussed some factors in detail, and responded to defendant's objections with further explanation. Therefore, defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing the term of imprisonment and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), based on defendant's prior Arkansas conviction for kidnapping and two prior convictions for serious drug offenses. The court reversed and remanded, holding that Arkansas Code 5-11-102, the statute that criminalizes kidnapping, did not qualify as a violent felony, because it was overbroad and indivisible. In this case, the nefarious purposes listed in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(7) were means, not elements. Therefore, defendant did not have the three predicate offenses to be sentenced under the ACCA. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Where a jury awarded plaintiff nominal compensatory damages and punitive damages for his claim of hostile work environment against his former employer, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's post-trial motions and grant of attorney's fees to plaintiff. The court held that the $250,000 award of punitive damages was supported by the record where plaintiff repeatedly complained to supervisors that his manager was using racial slurs and the company did not take action; plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim was timely under the applicable four year statue of limitations where the workplace abuse continued into the limitations period; the punitive damages amount was constitutionally sound in light of the degree of reprehensibility of defendant's misconduct; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and accepting the attorney's hourly rate as reasonable. View "Bryant v. Jeffrey Sand Co." 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 defendant's three prior felony convictions under Arkansas Code 5-64-401 qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Although the government conceded that the version of the Arkansas statute in effect at the time of defendant's convictions was overbroad, the statute was divisible where defendant was convicted under subsection (a), which criminalizes manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with intent to deliver controlled substances. Therefore, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in sentencing defendant under the ACCA. View "United States v. Meux" on Justia Law

The parties agreed that the anti-stacking provision barred the insureds from recovering any money from Country Preferred for a car accident. The insureds contend that as a result, Country Preferred committed fraud and was unjustly enriched by collecting three separate premiums for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, when the anti-stacking provision rendered the UIM coverage in the insureds' second and third policies worthless or "illusory" under Missouri courts.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment counterclaims, holding that the anti-stacking provisions did not render UIM coverage in multiple policies illusory because the premium paid for coverage under each policy corresponded with an increase in coverage. In this case, payment for UIM coverage under the insureds' second and third insurance policies buys coverage for non-named, non-family passengers and drivers of the insureds' second and third vehicles. View "Country Preferred Insurance Co. v. Lee" on Justia Law