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

DHS detained Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, in 2014, after she illegally entered the U.S. Ramirez stated she feared a neighbor would kill her if she returned to Guatemala because he frequently asked her to have sex, and she refused; she reported this neighbor to the police after he attempted to rape another woman, but the police did not arrest him. Ramirez said this neighbor sent men to confront her at knifepoint, demanding money and threatening to kill her. Ramirez submitted her asylum application (completed with the help of an attorney) and represented herself pro se. The IJ denied the application, stating Ramirez feared a “personal and a potential criminal act,” not “persecution” or “torture” necessary for securing asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture relief. The written decision concluded that Ramirez failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The decision repeatedly, erroneously, referred to Mexico and its caption charged Ramirez under the wrong statutory section. The BIA found “harmless error.” Ramirez argued the IJ’s hearing conduct violated procedural due process, failing to provide individualized consideration. The Eighth Circuit denied relief. The IJ gave Ramirez declined repeated opportunities to expound on her claim; on appeal, Ramirez failed to explain the evidence she might have offered had the IJ asked further questions. The BIA's order disavowed any errors and exercised the requisite independent judgment supported by substantial evidence. View "Ramirez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

A conspiracy to defraud financial institutions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area involved cashing counterfeit checks. Participants, including 25 co-defendants, created the counterfeit checks using check-printing software and blank check stock. “Bank insiders” provided bank account information for use on counterfeit checks. "Runners" were enlisted to serve as payees and take the checks to the bank to cash or deposit. Conspiracy members acquired account information through various means. Using social media, participants searched the hashtag “#myfirstpaycheck” and found photographs of legitimate paychecks that unwitting victims had posted online. Bank insiders sometimes provided account information. Some conspirators used their own payroll or personal checks to be counterfeited. During the period between November 2007 and September 2013 alone, more than 500 runners negotiated over 1500 counterfeit or fraudulent checks. Gaye pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344 and 1349, 20 counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud, and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A. Fillie pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one count of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. Sumoso pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and four counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud. The Eighth Circuit affirmed sentences of (respectively) 144, 134, and 54 months’ imprisonment and restitution orders, rejecting arguments that the district court committed procedural error in applying the guidelines. View "United States v. Gaye" on Justia Law

Federal law bars “any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust” from becoming or continuing as an employee of any institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 12 U.S.C. 1829(a)(1)(A) (Section 19) without regard to the age of the convictions. Disqualified persons may apply to the FDIC for waivers. Banking institutions may sponsor waiver applications. Wells Fargo, an FDIC-insured bank, requires job applicants to answer whether they had a conviction of a crime involving dishonesty. In 2010, Wells Fargo instituted a fingerprint-based background check for current and potential employees, which returns all criminal convictions. In 2012, Wells Fargo re-screened its entire Home Mortgage division, then terminated employees verified to have Section 19 disqualifications, without informing them of the availability of waivers or offering to sponsor waivers. Wells Fargo terminated at least 136 African Americans, 56 Latinos, and 28 white employees because of Section 19 disqualifications, and withdrew at least 1,350 conditional job offers to African Americans and Latinos and 354 non-minorities. In a suit, alleging race-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the court granted Wells Fargo summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Even if Wells Fargo’s policy of summarily terminating or not hiring any disqualified individual creates a disparate impact, the bank’s decision to comply with the statute’s command is a business necessity under Title VII. View "Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FCC's 2017 order altering regulations for business data services (BDS). ILEC Petitioners challenged new price cap rates in the order and CLEC Petitioners challenged most of the other changes in the order. The Eighth Circuit granted CLEC's petitions in part and vacated in part. The court denied the petitions for review on all other issues.The court held that the FCC's 2016 notice gave CLEC adequate notice of large scale deregulation and of the adopted Competitive Market Test, but the notice failed to give sufficient notice of its ending of ex ante regulation of transport services. This failure prevented interested parties from informed participation in that portion of the rulemaking and release of a draft of the proposed order did not remedy the FCC's violation of its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, the court vacated that portion of the final rule affecting time division multiplex transport services and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected challenges to the FCC's adoption of the Competitive Market Test. The court also held that the FCC did not act unreasonably in excluding low bandwidth Ethernet business data services from price caps; in declining to extend the Interim Wholesale Access Rule to business data services; and in setting the "X-factor" annual price cap reduction at 2%. View "Citizens Telecommunications Company of Minnesota v. FCC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of five counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit theft from a program receiving federal funds in connection with defendant's receipt of pay for a no-show job. The court held that the district court court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request to provide the jury with a copy of the indictment without a limiting instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant's proposed "good character" instruction; and the district court did not plainly err by giving a willful blindness instruction. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit theft from a federally funded program. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the inscription of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on United States coins and currency. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim. The court joined its sister circuits and held that placing "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency does not violate the Establishment Clause. In light of the Supreme Court's recent precedent in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), the court held that the long tradition of placing "In God We Trust" on U.S. money comports with the original understanding of the Establishment Clause. The court also held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Free Speech Clause because the Government's inscription did not compel plaintiffs to express any message. Furthermore, plaintiffs' First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause and statutory rights under Religious Freedom Restoration Act were not violated. Finally, plaintiffs' equal protection claim failed because the statutes requiring the inscription did not create any express or implied classifications and was rationally related to the Government's legitimate goal of honoring religion's role in American life and in the protection of American fundamental rights. View "New Doe Child #1 v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his minor son filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against two officers for unreasonable search and seizure, as well as use of excessive force. The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the unreasonable search and seizure claim, holding that the officers were justified in making the stop because they had reasonable suspicion that a child molester could be driving or hiding in the truck; the pat-down did not violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights; and the officers' search of the truck was reasonably related to the scope of the circumstances which justified the stop. The court affirmed as to the excessive use of force claim, holding that the officers' continuous drawing and pointing of weapons was unreasonable and constituted excessive force, and plaintiff and his son's right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time. View "Wilson v. Lamp" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of Missouri's method of execution as applied to him. The court held that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to show a plausible allegation that the State's method of execution would cause him severe pain where the complaint and his expert's attached affidavit included factual allegations that a seizure will occur when the State injects pentobarbital and that such a seizure causes severe pain. Furthermore, plaintiff has alleged that execution by lethal gas was an alternative method of execution that was feasible, readily implemented, and would in fact significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain for plaintiff in his particular circumstances. Finally, the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Precythe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government in an action to enforce a settlement agreement. The court held that OSC's press release stating that its investigation found that Nebraska Beef had engaged in illegal employment practices did not constitute a material breach of the settlement agreement. Therefore, because the government did not fail to fulfill any promise, Nebraska Beef's breach of contract counterclaim failed and the government's claim for enforcement prevailed. View "United States v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant in an action alleging that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiff alleged that his rights were violated under the FDCPA where, after he received his cease letter, the firm sent him a garnishment summons cover letter and tried to collect the underlying debt during a September phone call. The court held that the district court did not fail to apply the unsophisticated consumer standard where plaintiff's experience in debt collection and FDCPA litigation belies his grievance; the law firm did not violate plaintiff's rights by briefly discussing a possible resolution of the debt during the phone call, because plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly waived his cease letter for purposes of allowing the debt collector to answer his question after plaintiff called to ask a question about the underlying debt; the court agreed with the district court's assessment that plaintiff's call was an unsubtle and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to provoke the debt collector into committing an FDCPA violation; and the letter accompanying the garnishment summons was accurate. View "Scheffler v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A." on Justia Law