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

An Arkansas trial judge filed suit against the Arkansas Supreme Court and justices in their official capacities, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by permanently barring him from presiding over death penalty cases. The district court dismissed claims against the Arkansas Supreme Court as barred by sovereign immunity and denied the justices' motion to dismiss. The Eighth Circuit granted the justices' motion for writ of mandamus and directed plaintiff to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court held that plaintiff's free speech claim failed because he did not allege that he engaged in a protected activity where the recusal order applied to him in his role as a public employee and where recusal from death penalty cases was not an adverse employment action; the recusal order did not affect defendant's right to practice religion and his Free Exercise Clause claim failed; plaintiff's claim under the Arkansas Religious Restoration Act also failed; plaintiff was not deprived of his due process rights where he alleged no cognizable life, liberty or property interest; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an equal protection claim; and the district court erred in allowing plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim to proceed were he failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation to support the claim. View "In Re: Honorable John Kemp" on Justia Law

The trustee for the Laudine L. Ploetz, 1985 Trust filed suit against Morgan Stanley, alleging that it had transferred funds from the account without authorization. The trustee later moved the district court to vacate the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) after she learned that the chairperson of the arbitration panel had undisclosed service in a case years earlier involving Morgan Stanley.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the trustee's motion to vacate the arbitration, holding that the trustee did not warrant relief from the award under any of the court's evident-partiality standards since she did not explain how the chairperson's undisclosed mediation of the previous case created even an impression of possible bias. The court held that the mere fact that non-disclosure of the past service violated FINRA rules governing arbitration did not provide the district court with any basis to conclude he was evidently partial. Furthermore, arbitrator misbehavior that results only in the violation of a party's rights under FINRA rules was not significant enough to merit relief under 9 U.S.C. Sec. 10(a)(3) unless the party was deprived of a fair hearing. View "Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 130 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of heroin distribution. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing an upward departure for distribution of heroin resulting in death under USSG 5K2. The court also held that the district court did not give significant weight to an irrelevant factor by giving weight to defendant's knowledge that the victim used Vivitrol; the district court gave adequate weight to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and the sentence was within the range of reasonableness for a drug offense resulting in death and thus was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief to petitioner. The court held that neither of petitioner's Illinois burglary nor his Missouri second-degree burglary convictions were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Consequently, petitioner did not have three qualifying prior convictions and was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal. In this case, defendant's sentence of 216 months' imprisonment exceeded the statutory maximum applicable under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), and thus the court remanded for resentencing. View "Cravens v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography, but remanded with instructions to vacate the lesser-included possession conviction because the district court failed to instruct the jury that it could not convict defendant for both receipt and possession based on the same facts. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the receipt of child pornography conviction; any objection to venue was waived; there was no constructive amendment to the indictment nor a material variance from the indictment; even if the district court plainly erred by admitting a spreadsheet listing suspected files of child pornography, which was inadmissible hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and reversal was not required; and defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct was rejected. View "United States v. Morrissey" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for misappropriating over $5000 in federal grant funds that were distributed to the organization that he managed to subsidize an after-school program for children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A). The Eighth Circuit held that section 666(a)(1)(A) is not a continuing offense and a defendant may not be charged for a section 666(a)(1)(A) offense committed outside the five-year statute of limitations. However, like the defendant in this case, when a defendant has committed the offense both within and outside the limitations period, he may be charged with violations committed within the limitations period. The court held that any error in admitting evidence related to expenditures outside the limitations period did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Furthermore, there was no error in admitting a purported grant application into evidence; any error regarding the admission of hearsay at a pre-trial release proceeding was moot; and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. View "United States v. Askia" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the Board's decision vacating the IJ's order of withholding of removal, and denial of relief, ordering petitioner removed to Mexico. The court was unable to tell from the Board's rather opaque opinion whether the agency followed its regulations and applied the correct standard of review. Therefore, the court remanded to the Board for further proceedings in which it may clarify its decision or apply the correct standard of review as appropriate. View "Garcia-Mata v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees and its order denying defendant's motion to untimely file a second request for attorney fees. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing her requested attorney's fees for administrative proceedings. In this case, the district court was well within its discretion to deny defendant's motion for an extension of time to request the attorney fees she had failed to timely include in her first request. View "Paris School District v. Harter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 324 month sentence for conspiracy to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for undue influence under USSG 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) where defendant helped groom her nine year old daughter for criminal sexual activity; the application of a parental relationship enhancement under 2G1.2(b)(1)(A) did not result in impermissible double-counting; the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for USSG 2G1.3(b)(3)(A) for the use of a computer where the computer and programs like Facebook were used to persuade and influence the child to engage in sexual activities; and the district court carefully weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant at the bottom of the guidelines range. View "United States v. Mitteness" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's calculation of the loss amount in defendant's sentence after he was convicted of five counts of wire fraud. The court held that the district court properly determined that defendant's employer was a victim of the fraud scheme and that the company suffered actual and intended pecuniary losses, and the district court did not commit clear error in finding that certain uncharged conduct was part of defendant's common scheme or plan and including that conduct in the calculation of loss. The court vacated, however, the restitution award. The court held that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act applied to the wire fraud conviction and the court reversed and remanded in light of Lagos v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1684 (May 29, 2018). View "United States v. Cornelsen" on Justia Law