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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting the interference with commerce by robbery, and aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The court held that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to justify the traffic stop and affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of both counts, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by instruction the jury on intent. View "United States v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on four counts of the deprivation of his female probationers' civil rights. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions where he intentionally engaged in sexual conduct with the victims, the victims acquiesced to his sexual advances as a result of his abuse of his state law authority, and his conduct was egregious enough to support a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim; the district court did not err by rejecting his theory of defense instruction; any procedural error in calculating his 108 month sentence was harmless; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Defendant, an African-American man, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial denial of his Batson v. Kentucky challenge to the government's use of peremptory strikes against two African-American potential jurors. The court held that the government gave legitimate, race-neutral justifications for striking a juror based on her non-responsiveness to questioning during voir dire, body language, and unwillingness to make eye contact. Another panel of this court held while this appeal was pending, that burglary convictions under Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 5-39-201(a) did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Therefore, the court also affirmed defendant's sentence and rejected the government's argument that defendant should have been sentenced under the ACCA. View "United States v. Hampton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City and ImOn in an action brought by Mediacom, seeking declarations that certain resolutions were void and that the City could not permit a potential cable provider to construct a "cable system" without acquiring a cable franchise. Mediacom also alleged contract violations, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and Equal Protection violations, all depending on whether ImOn could lawfully build a fiber-optic network without a franchise. The court held that ImOn's fiber-optic network was not a "cable system," because ImOn has not provided or proposed to provide cable services. Therefore, the agreements at issue authorizing ImOn's construction of a fiber-optic network were not a de facto cable franchise. In regard to Mediacom's equal protection claim, the court also held that the district court properly concluded that ImOn and Mediacom were not similarly situated because only Mediacom was a cable provider in the City, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mediacom's motion for discovery. View "MCC Iowa v. Iowa City" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action seeking funds from her husband's trust that was transferred from an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461, plan. The husband had requested the "Accrued Benefit" amount from his ERISA employee-benefit plan be transferred to his trust days before he passed away. Applying an abuse of discretion standard to this case, the court held that the plan administrative committee reasonably explained its interpretation and relied on substantial evidence to deny plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the committee did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the relevant inquiry was not when funds were received by a participant, but rather when funds were transferred out of the plan. View "Wengert v. Rajendran" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action seeking funds from her husband's trust that was transferred from an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461, plan. The husband had requested the "Accrued Benefit" amount from his ERISA employee-benefit plan be transferred to his trust days before he passed away. Applying an abuse of discretion standard to this case, the court held that the plan administrative committee reasonably explained its interpretation and relied on substantial evidence to deny plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the committee did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the relevant inquiry was not when funds were received by a participant, but rather when funds were transferred out of the plan. View "Wengert v. Rajendran" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petitions for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner, on behalf of herself and her son, claimed that her husband and a male neighbor have persecuted her on account of her membership in a particular social group as a Guatemalan woman, and will persecute her again if she returns to Guatemala. The court held that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered past persecution and that she did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court explained that persecution was an extreme concept and minor beatings from her husband did not amount to persecution. Furthermore, the harassment and threats from her neighbor also did not cross the threshold to constitute persecution. Finally, petitioner has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief under the Convention Against Torture, because the record did not show more likely than not that she would be subjected to torture in Guatemala. View "Lopez-Coronado De Lopez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Specialized Loan Servicing, in an action alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Minnesota Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act. The court held that plaintiff failed to prove actual damages under RESPA and therefore he failed to establish an essential element of his federal claim. In this case, the bank records that plaintiff obtained for 2012 and 2013 were irrelevant to the dispute whether his loan payments were past due before June 2011. In the alternative, plaintiff did not produce evidence to support a finding of "pattern or practice" here, and there was no evidence that Specialized failed to investigate and respond reasonably to qualified written requests from other borrowers. Consequently, the court reversed as to the state law claim as well. The court remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for Specialized on the RESPA claim and for further proceedings on the claim under the Minnesota Act. View "Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer for hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliatory termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). Plaintiff was terminated after she burned a customer with her cigarette when he was sexually harassing her. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the ICRA claim as time-barred and held that the pendency of an EEOC review did not toll a state civil rights claim. The court rejected the Title VII claims on summary judgment where the customer's action did not constitute conduct so severe or pervasive to affect a term, condition, or privilege of plaintiff's employment. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that the employer new of the customer's harassing conduct but failed to take remedial action. The court also held that the retaliatory discrimination claim was time-barred. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's exclusion of evidence regarding previous sexual assaults and expert testimony. View "Hales v. Casey's Marketing Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer for hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliatory termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). Plaintiff was terminated after she burned a customer with her cigarette when he was sexually harassing her. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the ICRA claim as time-barred and held that the pendency of an EEOC review did not toll a state civil rights claim. The court rejected the Title VII claims on summary judgment where the customer's action did not constitute conduct so severe or pervasive to affect a term, condition, or privilege of plaintiff's employment. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that the employer new of the customer's harassing conduct but failed to take remedial action. The court also held that the retaliatory discrimination claim was time-barred. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's exclusion of evidence regarding previous sexual assaults and expert testimony. View "Hales v. Casey's Marketing Co." on Justia Law