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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for transferring obscene materials to a minor, receipt of child pornography, and sexual exploitation of a minor. The court held that the district court did not violate defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by excluding the evidence of the victim's sexual communications with other men; any error in excluding "fantasy source material" was harmless because the exhibit was cumulative; the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting defendant's cross-examination of the victim to 90 minutes; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the victim's age was an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a); the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; and the court rejected defendant's claim that his 264 month sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 144 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by imposing a three-level manager enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b). In this case, defendant provided a drug courier with instructions and logistical support in bringing eight kilograms of methamphetamine from California to Minnesota; when the drugs arrived in Minnesota, defendant instructed a cooperating individual by phone where to bring them and how to deliver them; and defendant recruited his sister to assist in methamphetamine deliveries and payments. View "United States v. Reyes-Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of sexual abuse committed in Indian Country, and one count of attempted witness tampering related to an assault on his girlfriend. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of sexual abuse where the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to infer that defendant put his girlfriend in fear of further physical abuse, that he knew she was in fear, and that she acquiesced to sexual activity because she was in fear of further physical injury. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of witness tampering where sufficient evidence allowed the jury to credit the prosecution's theory that defendant's statements were unlawful attempts to influence or prevent his girlfriend's testimony by threatening, coercing, or persuading her into recanting her story and telling a dishonest and inconsistent account of the assault. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors and held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence submitted at trial. View "United States v. Iu" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of movant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Movant claimed that counsel failed to impeach his accuser's credibility. The court held that counsel's investigation of the witness demonstrated reasonable professional judgment and was therefore not constitutionally deficient. The court rejected movant's claim that counsel's cross-examination of the witness amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and held that counsel did not act unreasonably in concluding that the best way to discredit an alleged sexual assault victim was through scientific evidence and expert testimony rather than through attempted character demolition. Therefore, counsel provided reasonable representation under Strickland v. Washington. The court also held that the district court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "Ford v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence in the administrative record supported the BIA's finding that petitioner and his son failed to prove past persecution.The court held that petitioner failed to establish an objective nexus between fear of future persecution and a protected ground. Although petitioner claimed a well-founded fear on account of his Mam ethnicity, the BIA found insufficient proof that the harm his family suffered during the guerilla conflict was due to their ethnicity, no evidence that private persons who claimed the family's land after they fled to Mexico acted on account of their ethnicity, and no evidence of a pattern or practice against Mam people in Guatemala. Furthermore, claims of fear of future persecution by the Zetas was not related to a protected ground. View "Martin v. Barr" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release based on the allegation that he committed assault in June 2016. The Eighth Circuit, on de novo review, reversed and held that the admission of three witness interrogations was erroneous where none of the witnesses appeared at the hearing to provide live testimony.Applying the test set out in U.S. v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1086), the court held that the government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that good cause justified limiting defendant's confrontational rights. In this case, the government failed to prove that confrontation would be either impractical or undesirable, and failed to establish the reliability of the evidence the government was offering in place of live testimony. View "United States v. Sutton" on Justia Law

A shareholder of Transgenomic filed a class action against former shareholders, alleging materially misleading statements and omissions in the proxy statement. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling that any omissions or misstatements in the proxy statement were not materially misleading, and held that the district court improperly resolved the materiality of the omission as a matter of law. The court also held that issues regarding whether a revenue table was misleading were also questions for the trier of fact. Finally, plaintiff's section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act allegation was sufficiently pled. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Campbell v. Transgenomic, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's grant of DHS's motion to pretermit petitioner's cancellation of removal application. At issue was whether petitioner's Nebraska criminal attempt conviction qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude. Petitioner's plea arose from his use of a fraudulent social security card to obtain employment.The court held that the criminal impersonation statute underlying petitioner's attempt conviction was a divisible statute. The court applied the modified categorical approach, but was unable to determine which subsection under which petitioner was convicted. The court explained that petitioner had the burden of establishing his eligibility for cancellation of removal, and because he failed to meet his burden, the court upheld the Board's determination that he has not shown such eligibility. View "Pereida v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order granting the Chapter 13 trustee's motion to dismiss debtor's bankruptcy case. The panel held that the record supported the trustee's contention that debtor did not satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. 109(h) and thus could not be a debtor under the bankruptcy code. In this case, despite checking the box on her petition to represent she had received credit counseling within the 180 days before she filed her petition, debtor did not claim–much less offer any proof–she actually received such counseling within the time allowed. Petitioner failed to submit the required certification to obtain a temporary waiver of the credit counseling requirement due to exigent circumstances, and did not file the required request that the bankruptcy court determine she was unable to complete credit counseling due to incapacity, disability, or active military duty in a military combat zone. Finally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in barring debtor from refiling for 180 days. View "Marshall v. McCarty" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of disability benefits to plaintiff based on his claim of mild intellectual disability, low education, slow learning abilities, and memory problems. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's assessment that plaintiff was only moderately intellectually limited, rather than intellectually disabled. Consequently, the court also held that plaintiff's claim that the ALJ failed to consider whether plaintiff met the criteria for intellectual disability was meritless. View "Bagwell v. Commissioner" on Justia Law