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

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion for summary judgment and denied taxpayer's cross motion. The court held that the government established the existence and proper mailing of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2002 by producing a copy of the notice and Form 4340. Although the government did not produce a copy of the notice for the 2009 tax year, it submitted a Case History Report that described steps taken by the IRS officer assigned to taxpayer's case. Therefore, the Case History Report and the Form 4340 produced by the government established both the existence and mailing of the notice for tax year 2009. View "United States v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American Family, in an action brought by Clarke, alleging that the insurer wrongfully denied coverage for defense and indemnity of a lawsuit against Clarke in state court. The court held that the claims as pled in the underlying state court action did not give rise to a duty to defend under Iowa law, and no duty to indemnify could exist. In this case, the claims for damages caused by ice dams during the 2009-2010 winter did not rationally involve property damage that occurred before the policy expired in 2006. View "Clarke Co., Ltd. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of debtor's motion to reconsider the order entered which indefinitely extended the deadlines for payment of the last two installments of her filing fee. The court held that debtor's briefs contained extensive and repetitive factual argument expressing frustration with the bankruptcy process but she failed to identify any clearly erroneous facts or an incorrect application of the law that would entitle her to relief under any of the circumstances identified in Rule 60(b). View "Curran v. Moon" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 41 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, and fraudulent use of access devices. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a two-level sophisticated-means enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); the sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court did not err, let alone plainly err, when it considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the district court adequately explained the sentence; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting and in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for crimes related to his role in a bank robbery. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting three Facebook videos into evidence where the videos were sent to defendant's friends in the days leading up to the robbery. In this case, the videos constituted intrinsic evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the videos based on the high probative value in comparison to the potential prejudice. The court also held that the district court gave the precise jury instruction that defendant requested and defendant never objected to it. Therefore, defendant's challenge to the instructions was unreviewable on appeal. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 360 month sentence for kidnapping. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing the cross reference to attempted murder and the district court's application of USSG 2A2.1(a)(1) did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights; the district court did not clearly err by determining that the victim suffered a life threatening bodily injury for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 1B1.1 cmt.n1(J)(2016); the district court did not engage in impermissible double-counting and did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement for a life-threatening injury under USSG 2A2.1(b)(1)(A); and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where a sentence at the bottom of the Advisory Guidelines range was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the kidnapping and defendant's long history of controlling and abusive behavior towards women. Although defendant's age and condition arguably may have justified a departure or variance, the district court acted within its discretion when it decided to impose a Guidelines-range sentence. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of ex-wife's motion to dismiss an action brought by ex-husband, alleging violations of the anti-alienation provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), that arose from payments he made to her for almost three decades. The court held that a prior state court judgment was entitled to res judicata effect where ex-husband had an opportunity to litigate the question of whether the state court had jurisdiction to address his violations of ERISA claims. View "Schwartz v. Bogen" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, out-of-network medical providers who United intentionally failed to fully pay for services rendered to United plan beneficiaries in order to offset overpayments to the same providers from other United administered plans filed a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of their patients, the plan beneficiaries. Providers claimed that the relevant claim plan documents did not authorize United to engage in cross-plan offsetting.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to providers on the issue of liability and held that nothing in the plan documents even comes close to authorizing cross-plan offsetting. Furthermore, the practice of cross-plan offsetting was in some tension with the requirements of ERISA. While the court need not decide whether cross-plan offsetting necessarily violated ERISA, the court held that United's interpretation of the documents was not reasonable. View "Louis J. Peterson, D.C. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc." on Justia Law