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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior Missouri convictions under section 195.211, RSMo 2003 and section 195.242, RSMo 2000 qualified as controlled substance offenses for purposes of calculating defendant's offense level. The court explained that, by comparison to the generic Guidelines definition, defendant's convictions under sections 195.211.3 and 195.242.1 require more than "mere words of an offer" for a sale, thus qualifying as controlled substance offenses. View "United States v. Thomas" 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. The court held that defendant's prior Missouri convictions under section 195.211, RSMo 2003 and section 195.242, RSMo 2000 qualified as controlled substance offenses for purposes of calculating defendant's offense level. The court explained that, by comparison to the generic Guidelines definition, defendant's convictions under sections 195.211.3 and 195.242.1 require more than "mere words of an offer" for a sale, thus qualifying as controlled substance offenses. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether substantial evidence was presented in support of the objection as a matter of law sufficient to rebut the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) proof of claim. Debtors-appellees Scott and Anna Austin filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code with the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in 2014. In their schedules, the Austins listed two pending worker’s compensation claims as contingent and unliquidated exempt property. These claims were valued at $0.00 or an “unknown value.” The Austins listed the IRS as a secured creditor. The IRS filed proof of claim no. 5-1, asserting in part a secured claim as a result of a tax lien. The Austins objected to the amount of the IRS’s priority claim (“January Objection”), arguing that no value should be attributable to their worker’s compensation claims in determining the secured portion of the IRS’s claim. They also argued, in the alternative, that since there were neither settlement offers nor a basis to determine the value of the worker’s compensation claims, the present value of the worker’s compensation claims should be $0. The Bankruptcy Court overruled the Austins’ January Objection, finding they failed to meet their burden to produce substantial evidence to rebut the IRS’s claim. The Bankruptcy Court disagreed the worker’s compensation claims had no value. In the meantime, the Austins negotiated a settlement of the worker’s compensation claims for $21,448.80. After attorneys’ fees, the Austins received a net settlement of $15,661.60. The IRS learned of the settlement, and filed an amended claim, No. 5-3, which included as part of its secured claim the amount of $15,661.60 for the value of the settlement. The Austins again objected to the IRS’s claim, filing an affidavit their worker’s compensation attorney, who opined that the worker’s compensation claims had a “nuisance” value of $3,000.00 on the petition date. The IRS argued that the affidavit was not substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the prima facie validity of the IRS’s claim. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the affidavit was “substantial evidence” of the value of the claims, sufficient to rebut the prima facie validity of the IRS’ claim. The Bankruptcy Court therefore sustained the Austins’ objection and valued the worker’s compensation claims at $3,000, and reduced the IRS’s secured claim by $12,661.00. Based on its de novo review of the record, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel found the Austins failed to present substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity and amount of the IRS’s proof of claim. Therefore, their objection to claim should have been overruled. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

The City of Kennett, Missouri, sued the Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the EPA’s approval of a total maximum daily load for Buffalo Ditch. Buffalo Ditch was a stream that ran southwest into Arkansas from the City. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant was a point source of pollutants into it. Parts of Buffalo Ditch had been on Missouri’s EPA-approved list of impaired waters since 1994, due to low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO), which supported aquatic life. The final total maximum daily load” (TMDL) set wasteload allocations for pollutants from the Treatment Plant. These wasteload allocations were more stringent than the limited in the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City’s permit was to expire in 2015; in its “Implementation Plan” for point sources, the TMDL stated if it was determined the current water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen was appropriate, the wasteload allocations from the TMDL would be implemented. If not appropriate, and a new dissolved oxygen criterion was promulgated, then new wasteload allocations would be calculated and implemented. Despite this intention, the DO criterion and the TMDL did not change. The City sued, alleging: (1) the EPA exceeded its authority in approving the TMDL; (2) the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously; (3) the EPA failed to provide the required notice and comment. The Eighth Circuit determined the City waived a claim by failing to mention or argue for summary judgment on that claim, and by failing to respond to the EPA's motion for summary judgment on the claim. With respect to its remaining claims and the issue of standing, the City established injury in fact as it would incur costs in complying with any new limits on pollution discharge from its waste water plant. Similarly, because the injury was impending, the City also established redressability, and it had standing to bring this action. Further, the Court determined the case was ripe, and the district court erred in granting the EPA summary judgment based on a lack of standing and ripeness. The EPA argued the City waived its remaining claims by failing to raise them in the administrative process; because it would be beneficial to permit the district court to address this issue in the first instance, the matter was remanded for further proceedings on this question and, if necessary, the merits of those issues. View "City of Kennett v. Env. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's decision to deny the I-751 petition, to terminate petitioner's permanent resident status, and to have her removed under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(D)(i). The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner failed to establish that her marriage was bona fide and not entered into primarily to secure an immigration benefit. In this case, there was substantial direct evidence of the couple's intent at the time of marriage for petitioner to come to the country to enter into a sham marriage for immigration purposes. View "Sagoe v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of American Piping's motion to dismiss the complaint in an action filed by Morgantown for breach of implied warranties. The court held that Morgantown failed to state a breach of warranty claim on which relief could be granted. In this case, the Terms & Conditions of the contract at issue included an express disclaimer of warranties, and Morgantown did not challenge the validity or enforceability of the express disclaimer. View "Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of Ohio v. American Piping Products, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from litigation establishing that FAG Bearings was solely responsible for the TCE contamination in Silver Creek and Saginaw. Schaeffler Group subsequently acquired the facility. In this case, plaintiffs filed suit against Schaeffler, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for their daughter's autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Plaintiffs alleged that Schaeffler's negligent release of TCE and failure to warn the community of TCE contamination caused their daughter to develop AIH. A jury found in favor of plaintiffs and the district court then denied Schaeffler's motions for judgments as a matter of law and a new trial. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that Schaeffler was judicially estopped to deny successor liability; because plaintiffs failed to prove successor liability, the district court erred in denying summary judgment dismissing Schaeffler as a separate defendant; the post-trial dismissal of Schaeffler because plaintiffs failed to prove successor liability did not affect the jury's finding that FAG Bearings was liable for negligently causing plaintiffs' AIH injury; remand for a partial new trial limited to the issue of FAG Bearings's punitive damages liability was appropriate; plaintiffs proved causation; and the evidence was sufficient to submit the failure to warn claim to the jury. View "Kirk v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that defendant's prior Missouri second-degree burglary convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), because the second-degree burglary statute covered more conduct than generic burglary. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Naylor" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's vacatur of defendant's 15-year sentence and resentence to a 10-year term of imprisonment following Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016). The court held that, under these circumstances, an appropriate correction to the sentence was to enforce the parties' binding agreement under the terms of the original Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), which specifically contemplated the possibility that defendant's criminal history might not trigger the enhanced penalties of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court declined to apply contract principles to plea agreements and rejected defendant's alternative contention of mutual mistake. Even if the parties' binding agreement was based in part on a mutual mistake, the district court did not err by enforcing it. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Ritchison" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was paralyzed from the waist down and used a wheelchair, filed suit against RL Liquor for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), after he encountered barriers at the store. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action as moot, holding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden to prove a readily achievable barrier removal method. Following the Tenth, Second, and Eleventh Circuits, the court held that the district court properly required plaintiff to initially present evidence tending to show that the suggested method of barrier removal was readily achievable under the circumstances. In this case, plaintiff failed to offer a plausible proposal for barrier removal. View "Wright v. RL Liquor" on Justia Law