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

Welspun filed suit against its insurer, Liberty Mutual, arguing that its unpaid mitigation costs were "necessary expenses" included in the policy's loss of business income coverage. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Liberty Mutual. The court held that the district court did not err in limiting necessary expenses covered in Paragraph C.2. of the policy to expenses incurred to avoid or reduce a loss of business income; reading the loss of business income policy provisions together, in light of their historical roots and obvious purpose, the court agreed with the district court that "necessary expenses" in Paragraph C.2. were limited to expenses that reduce a covered business income loss; and the incremental costs Welspun incurred in shifting some Seaway production to an affiliate in India were not "necessary expenses" within the meaning of Paragraph C.2. of the policy. View "Welspun Pipes Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 782. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion because his plea agreement explicitly waived the right to seek section 3582(c)(2) relief. Furthermore, defendant was not entitled to relief because he was sentenced as a career offender, not drug quantities. View "United States v. Cowan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. In this case, when the prosecutor elicited whether defendant exercised his constitutional rights to withhold consent to search his vehicle, the brief and ambiguous exchange did not prejudicially affect defendant's right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the government presented strong, independent evidence of defendant's guilt and the district court issued a firm curative instruction immediately after the exchange in question. View "United States v. Kopecky" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for misusing a social security number and for the statutorily mandated two additional years in prison for aggravated identity theft. The court held that the district court did not err in considering defendant's prior unobjected-to conduct showing that defendant, then nineteen, had sex with a fifteen year old girl ten to fifteen times, in determining whether to vary upward; in denying defendant's request to move the paragraph detailing the sexual-conduct charge from the "Adult Criminal Conviction(s)" section of the PSR to the "Other Arrests" section; by imposing the $5,000 fine; in considering the pretrial services report to impeach defendants; and by imposing the fine before allocution. View "United States v. Hernandez-Espinoza" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed petitioner's new sentence after the district court vacated his original sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and again applied an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court held that petitioner's two prior Iowa assault convictions were committed on occasions different from one another and qualified as separate predicate offenses under section 924(e). Therefore, the district court properly enhanced petitioner's sentence under the ACCA and the corresponding sentencing guideline. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court had wide latitude in deciding how to weigh the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "Levering v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing sentencing enhancements under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) for three or more firearms, USSG 3B1.4 for use of a child in the commission of the offense; and USSG 2K2.1(B)(6)(b) for committing the firearm offense in connection with another felony; defendant waived his argument that the district court abused its discretion in granting the government's request to continue; even if subject to plain error review, the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less commit plain error, in granting the government's motion for a short continuance to secure the attendance of an important witness; the district court did not err by calculating defendant's base offense level as his prior conviction for assault while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code Sections 708.1 and 708.2(3) was a crime of violence resulting in a base offense level of 22 under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(a)(3); and even if there was error, the error was harmless. View "United States v. McGee" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that petitioner's conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree in violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.344, subdiv.1(b) was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that a person who has been convicted under the statute has necessarily committed sexual abuse of a minor under the Act and was both removable and ineligible for asylum. View "Garcia-Urbano v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the tax court's order finding that taxpayer owed additional income taxes and penalties. The court held that the person that issued the notice of deficiency was in a supervisory position and thus the notice satisfied the statutory requirement that the deficiency be determined and sent by someone duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. View "Muncy v. CIR" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he violated his terms of supervision. The court held that the district court properly considered the relevant factors and did not procedurally err in failing to explain its sentence. In this case, the district court discussed defendant's lengthy criminal history and his noncompliance to court orders. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant and his 24 month sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Holt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and voluntary departure. The court held that the record contained sufficient facts to support the BIA's conclusion that petitioner's prior conviction under North Dakota law for unlawful entry into a vehicle was an aggravated felony attempted theft as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(U) and (G). View "Ahmed v. Sessions" on Justia Law