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

The Eighth Circuit granted Bussen's petition for review of the MSHA's issuance of a citation to Bussen. In this case, the Secretary claimed that Bussen violated federal regulation 30 C.F.R. 56.15005, which requires the use of certain fall-protection equipment at surface metal and nonmetal mines when working where there is a danger of falling. The court held that there was no evidence to support a conclusion that any miner approached the highwall edge when moving the pump cart or were otherwise working without safety belts and lines where there was a danger of falling. Therefore, substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's finding that Bussen violated section 56.15005. View "Bussen Quarries, Inc. v. Acosta" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Lomax and Gaines' sentences after they pleaded guilty to the federal crime of Conspiracy to Distribute Heroin. The court held that the district court did not err in applying a career offender enhancement to Lomax's Guidelines offense level based on his prior conviction for domestic abuse assault under Iowa Code Sec. 708.2A, because the offense had an element of physical force. The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a 21 level career offender enhancement under USSG 4B1.1(b)(3) as the starting point for Gaines's sentence, and his sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court varied downward from his Guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Gaines" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing heroin and furanylfentanyl resulting in death and serious bodily injury and one count of the substantive crime. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction; the sentencing enhancement found in USSC 841(b)(1)(C) was sustainable on the record where expert testimony provided by medical professionals established beyond a reasonable doubt that two individuals would not have overdosed and would not have died but-for the use of the drugs; and nothing in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 210 (2014), or the plain language of the statute limits responsibility to only the last person to distribute the drug before the harm occurs. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's modification of defendant's terms of his supervised release to include a standard condition explicitly prohibiting the use of medical marijuana. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that defendant's use of marijuana, even for medical purposes, contravenes federal law. The court reasoned that, although some medical marijuana was legal in Minnesota as a matter of state law, the state's law conflicted with federal law. Therefore, the district court had no discretion to allow defendant to use medical marijuana while on supervised release. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying defendant's terms of supervised release to provide clarifying language accurately depicting federal law. View "United States v. Schostag" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for distributing five or more grams of actual methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors; the government did not impermissibly vary from the facts charged in the indictment; and the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The court also held that any procedural error at sentencing did not affect the calculation of defendant's criminal history score. Furthermore, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court explained its sentencing decision, recounting defendant's long history of violent conduct and considered the need to protect the community. Therefore, the district court properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 180 months in prison. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to the Med and Avectus in a class action suit alleging that both federal and Arkansas Medicaid laws prohibited the Med from directly billing Medicaid beneficiaries. The court held that federal law did not bar the Med from attempting recovery from plaintiff or a liable third party because the Med had opted not to bill and to accept payment from Arkansas Medicaid. The court also held that, like the federal provisions, the Arkansas Medicaid statutes do not prohibit a medical provider from foregoing Medicaid’s guaranteed payment for covered services and opting instead to bill the patient or liable third parties directly. View "Robinett v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment finding that Officers Martorano and Moton used excessive force in their apprehension and arrest of plaintiff and award of damages to plaintiff. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the deposition testimony of an unavailable medical expert witness where the expert qualified as an expert and had been extensively cross-examined during his deposition, he was unavailable, and defendants had notice; the district court did not err in submitting plaintiff's punitive damage claim to the jury and the award against Moton was supported by substantial evidence; and the district court did not err in denying the officers' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to deduct from the judgment amount sums plaintiff had received from pretrial settlements with other defendants. View "Fletcher v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to a police officer based on qualified immunity in an action brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer applied excessive force when he brought plaintiff to the ground. The court held that, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts gave rise to a question of unreasonable and excessive force for the ultimate finder of fact. In this case, plaintiff neither posed a threat to anyone's safety nor resisted arrest at the time that the officer executed the arm-bar takedown, and therefore his right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force was violated. Furthermore, the right was clearly established at the time. View "Neal v. Ficcadenti" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of a lifetime of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor and his supervised release was revoked two times. The court held that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and explained defendant's sentence. In this case, the district court imposed a much longer term of supervised release than first contemplated at the initial hearing based on the psychological examination, which the district court found alarming and very damaging to defendant. Therefore, there was no procedural error in sentencing where the district court provided a reasoned basis for the heightened sentence. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where a lifetime term of supervised release was both statutorily permissible and within the Sentencing Guidelines range for defendant's offense. View "United States v. DeMarrias" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their loan servicer, Rushmore, in state court for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. After removal to federal court, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim that Rushmore violated the Minnesota statutory requirements for handling foreclosures pursuant to Minn. Stat. 582.043, and added U.S. Bank as a party.The Minnesota Supreme court answered a certified question and held that the lis pendens deadline contained in section 582.043, subd. 7(b) cannot be extended upon a showing of excusable neglect pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.02. The Eighth Circuit held that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision resolved this appeal, because plaintiffs failed to file the lis pendens within their redemption period as required by section 582.043, subd. 7(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Litterer v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC" on Justia Law