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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, interference with commerce by robbery (or a Hobbs Act robbery), using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense or a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant's crimes stemmed from a robbery and shooting of an individual from whom defendant had arranged to purchase a large amount of marijuana.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the crimes; because the court affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, which was undisputedly a drug-trafficking offense, the predicate offense necessitated by 18 U.S.C. 924(c) was satisfied without regard to whether a Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence; and, although defendant's 150 month sentence exceeded the 60 month statutory maximum based upon the quantity of marijuana involved, defendant failed to show the prejudice required to vacate his sentence. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit enforced defendant's waiver appeal and dismissed her appeal, rejecting her claim that the government breached the plea agreement because it provided her self-incriminating proffered statements to the probation office in order to support the drug quantity calculations contained in the presentence investigation report and to establish a base offense level for her sentence.The court held that defendant failed to identify which, if any, of her proffered statements were allegedly used to calculate the drug quantities contained in the presentence investigation report and to establish her base offense level. Defendant also failed to rule out that the information used in the presentence investigation report may have come from independent sources, which was permissible under the plea agreement. Even assuming without deciding that plaintiff established that there was an error, she failed to establish prejudice to support her claim of plain error. View "United States v. Ackerley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of sexual exploitation of a child and production of child pornography, as well as one count of possession of child pornography. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where defendant had explicit photographs of his fourteen year old daughter on his cell phone and tablet device depicting her sexual abuse. The court also held that the district court did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement for the age of victim, obstruction of justice, and physical restraint of the victim. The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the resulting sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Davenport" on Justia Law

A group of landowners filed suit against Dakota Access, alleging that they were induced to sign easement contracts allowing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline across their properties based on various misrepresentations made by Dakota Access and its contracting affiliate CLS. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that plaintiffs' claim under North Dakota law sounded in fraud, and all plaintiffs' claims were thus governed by the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). In this case, the complaint failed to plead such facts as the time, place, and content of defendant's false representations, as well as the details of defendant's fraudulent acts, including when the acts occurred, who engaged in them, and what was obtained as a result. View "Olin v. Dakota Access, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Irmat's complaint against Express Scripts, alleging various contract claims, a promissory estoppel claim, and violations of federal antitrust laws and state Any Willing Provider laws. The court held that the inclusion of Express Scripts's unilateral right to terminate the agreement between the parties upon thirty days written notice was, by itself, insufficient to support a claim of unconscionability; the agreement was not unconscionable because it was a non-negotiable form contract (i.e., a contract of adhesion); Express Scripts did not violate its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it terminated Irmat from its network; and the e-mail Express Scripts sent to Irmat in August 2015 did not constitute a novation where it lacked essential contractual provisions.The court also held that Irmat failed to plausibly plead promissory estoppel. Finally, the court rejected Irmat's claim that Express Scripts violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and that Express Scripts violated the Any Willing Provider laws. Irmat was not entitled to leave to amend its complaint. View "Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order denying their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that even if the IJ committed procedural error by stopping petitioner's counsel from proposing a particular social group, petitioner failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Furthermore, there was no violation of due process where the IJ's conduct in this case did not show a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that precluded fair judgment. Finally, petitioner's claims regarding humanitarian asylum and ineffective assistance of counsel were raised for the first time in the petition and thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. View "Gutierrez Molina v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in treating defendant's prior Missouri conviction for attempted first-degree robbery as a crime of violence. In addition to imposing a prison sentence that exceeded a year, the first-degree robbery statute required an individual to forcibly steal property, which necessary involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. View "United States v. Shine" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782. In this case, the district court determined that defendant was eligible for a reduced sentence under Amendment 782 and accurately calculated his amended Guidelines range. The court held that the district court did not make a clear or obvious error in considering post-sentencing conduct where defendant's attack on another individual lead to her death the following year. Furthermore, the district court did not make any conflicting findings; the district court could not be accused of performing a "plenary resentencing proceeding" when it decided to leave defendant's original sentence undisturbed; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by inadequately weighing defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. View "United States v. Darden" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, possession of an unregistered destructive device, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(5) for trafficking in firearms because defendant had reason to believe the buyer intended to use the weapons unlawfully. View "United States v. Lomax" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Medalist in an action seeking damages for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Plaintiff operates Cane Creek, which supplies, grows, and delivers sod. Medalist specializes in building high-end golf courses. The parties' dispute stemmed from a Grass Supplier Agreement to reserve grasses for a set price.The court held that Medalist was entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because plaintiff could not show that Medalist wrongfully rejected the sod. The court also held that a reasonable jury could find that an enforceable requirements contract existed in this case, which could bar plaintiff from recovery under a theory of promissory estoppel. Even if a promissory estoppel claim were available, the court held that this was not the extreme case that would entitle plaintiff to such extraordinary relief. View "Williams v. Medalist Golf, Inc." on Justia Law