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

Defendant appealed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award plaintiff received against his insurer, Great American, for wrongfully denying his claim for damage to his corn crop. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, holding that vacatur of the arbitration award was improper because the arbitrators rendered a sufficiently mutual, final, and definite award. The court held that the arbitration panel's failure to break down the award by county did not mean that it was so imperfectly executed such that it rendered no mutual, final, and definite award. The court also found that the panel's written explanation for the award amount was adequate. View "Great American Insurance Co. v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that counsel's conflict did not adversely affect the adequacy of his representation of petitioner at trial; the district court did not clearly err in finding that counsel's strategy was reasonable in the circumstances, the evidence of petitioner's guilt was overwhelming, and alternative strategies petitioner proposed were not objectively reasonable; and petitioner failed to show that the conflict diminished counsel's credibility in the jury's eyes. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that counsel did not know that the funds at issue were stolen and that there was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that petitioner knew, or should have known, that the funds at issue were illegitimate. Finally, the district court did not clearly err by finding that emails were insufficient to raise an inference that counsel was entangled with the conspiracy. View "Kiley v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 111 days and 3 years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of identification documents. The court held that the district court's decision to impose supervised release was both consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines and an appropriate exercise of the district court's wide latitude in determining a sentence. In this case, the conditions of defendant's supervised release specified if he were removed or deported, he could not reenter the United States without permission, but he would not be on active supervision while he was outside the country. View "United States v. Hernandez-Loera" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for damaging property of the United States valued at more than $1,000 after a drunk-driving incident in which defendant struck and destroyed a localizer antenna array at an airport. The court held that the district court did not erroneously instruct the jury as to the elements of the offense and rejected defendant's assertion that 18 U.S.C. 1361 required that a defendant know the damage property belonged to the United States. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant acted willfully in driving his car into the localizer antenna array. View "United States v. Krause" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a stop and frisk. The court held that it was reasonable for the officer to stop defendant because he suspected that defendant, his companion, or both were carrying a concealed firearm. The court explained that, since a concealed-weapons permit was merely an affirmative defense under Iowa Code 724.4(1), an officer may presume that the suspect is committing a criminal offense until the suspect demonstrates otherwise. In this case, there was a report from a known person with whom the officer had an extensive discussion and who asserted that she found a loaded handgun magazine of unknown origins; she identified the only two people who had access to the location where the magazines were found; and thus it was reasonable to suspect that a person with loaded handgun magazines could have a handgun.Furthermore, the officer could frisk defendant because defendant was lawfully stopped and the officer reasonably believed that defendant was armed with a gun. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(a), because defendant had previously committed a crime of violence: aggravated vehicular hijacking. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment affirming a bankruptcy court order holding the Bank and its president in contempt and sanctioning them for violating a final bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court noted that it employed a flexible and pragmatic approach when assessing the preclusive effect of a court's order and held that the bankruptcy court did not issue a ruling that would have preclusive effect.The court held that, while post-discharge forbearance may serve as consideration for a new commitment to repay the present value of a lien, no cases suggested that a lienholder could leverage a security interest to obtain a larger repayment commitment, much less a larger commitment representing a discharged personal debt. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that the Bank and its president were in contempt for violating a final bankruptcy discharge injunction. View "First State Bank of Roscoe v. Stabler" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 10 months in prison and one year of supervised release after he violated his conditions of release for the second time. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by associating with individuals involved in criminal activity. Although the district court denied defendant the opportunity to allocute on its finding about the gang situation, it allowed him to speak at length about anything else. In this case, defendant did not object to this denial at sentencing nor did he state what he would have said. View "United States v. Thurmond" on Justia Law

In light of legal authorities and the historical record, defendant's contention that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle is at least subject to reasonable dispute. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with unlawful possession of a firearms as a previously convicted felon. The court held that defendant forfeited his Second Amendment claim because it was neither plain nor obvious that the Second Amendment protects defendant's conduct. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 34 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and took into consideration the sole mitigating factor presented by defendant—that he possessed the firearm for a good reason. In this case, the court observed that defendant's conduct was repeated conduct and defendant had previously spent time in prison for committing the instant offense, and that he was not deterred from committing it again. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of Receipt of Images Depicting the Sexual Exploitation of Minors. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial because there was no error in allowing the government's forensic expert to testify as to three issues; by allowing the government's expert to testify regarding the age of the child depicted in the image; and by refusing to replace a juror who cried when images of child pornography were published at trial during the government's case-in-chief. View "United States v. Chavez Spotted Horse" on Justia Law