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

A coram nobis petitioner whose motion for 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief was denied while he was in custody must obtain authorization from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with section 2244(b)(3)(B). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in section 2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner whose motion for section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in custody. In this case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's post conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to import machine guns from Eastern Europe by submitting forms with false entries to the ATF and sentenced to sixty months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was no fundamental error in petitioner's case that warranted issue of the writ. View "Baranski v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) after defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felony. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for second-degree assault under Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.060.1(5) was a prior felony conviction for a "crime of violence" under the guidelines. Consistent with Voisine v. U.S., 136 S. Ct 2272 (2016), and U.S. v. Fogg, 836 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2016), the court held that reckless conduct causing injury to another by use of a firearm constitutes a use of force under the guidelines. View "United States v. Ramey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud TierOne Bank's shareholders and to mislead its regulators by concealing millions of dollars in losses related to the failure of certain real estate loans. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed the knowledge and intent required to sustain his convictions; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a bill of particulars where the government's disclosures were sufficient to enable defendant to understand the nature of the charges against him, prepare a defense, and avoid any surprise; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges; and the district court properly declined to issue defendant's requested jury instructions. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in adopting the loss calculation methodology set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines; the district court did not err in applying a 4-level leadership enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a); and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Finally, the district court did not err in its calculation of the restitution award. View "United States v. Lundstrom" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's appeal from the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable and denial of his applications for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that petitioner waived his challenge to the IJ's application of the "one central reason" nexus standard to petitioner's withholding of removal application; substantial evidence supported the IJ's conclusion that petitioner's worship of Santa Muerte was not one central reason for his persecution by Mexican law enforcement; and substantial evidence supported the denial of petitioner's application for CAT protection. View "Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a ten year term of supervised release and a special travel condition where defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender. This was defendant's fourth conviction related to registry requirements. The court held that the ten year term of supervised release was reasonable because the district court discussed the specific factors that went into making its decisions. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in including the special travel condition in defendant's supervised release where the district court identified public safety concerns, including defendant's history of evading registry requirements, using false names, and lying to law enforcement officers. In this case, the district court balanced the need to encourage adherence to the registry requirements with a potential deprivation of liberty. View "United States v. Fulk" on Justia Law

Missouri Revised Statute Sections 328.020 and 329.030, which require African-style hair braiders to have a license to work for pay, is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in protecting consumers and ensuring public health and safety. In this case, the State offered evidence of health risks associated with braiding such as hair loss, inflammation, and scalp infection. The Eighth Circuit held that the Missouri statutes did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the African-style hair braiders, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State. View "Niang v. Carroll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order striking LNG's verified claim in a civil forfeiture proceeding. The court held that LNG's verified claim was materially indistinguishable from the claim a panel of the court found inadequate in United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2014). In this case, LNG's verified claim failed to meet the threshold pleading requirement set forth in Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. View "United States v. LNG Express, Inc." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that DPG's claim against debtor was not nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err by determining that DPG had failed to establish the essential elements of its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, no evidence established that filing of the mechanic's lien at issue was certain or almost certain to cause harm to DPG, and therefore malicious or willful under section 523(a)(6). View "Dering Pierson Group, LLC v. Kantos" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's putative class action alleging that Scottrade violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of a common law fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleged that Scottrade routinely routes customer limit orders for the purchase and sale of securities to trading venues that pay rebates to sending brokers, violating Scottrade's duty of best execution in buying and selling securities on behalf of its customers. The court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 78bb(f)(1), preempted plaintiff's action because the allegations in plaintiff's state law class action complaint, fairly read, alleged material misrepresentations or omissions, or the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in connection with the purchase and sale of covered securities. View "Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Rock-Tenn in a civil rights action alleging religion and sex discrimination. The Eighth Circuit held that Title VII did not impose a legal obligation to provide an employee an articulated basis for dismissal at the time of firing, and an employer was certainly not bound as a matter of law to whatever reasons might have been provided; rather, it was well-established that a employer may elaborate on its explanation for an employment decision; and, in this case, there was no contradiction between the explanation given to plaintiff at the time of his termination and the non-discriminatory reasons for termination that Rock-Tenn articulated during this litigation. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show sufficient evidence that Rock-Tenn's proffered reasons for firing him -- poor performance -- were pretexts for discrimination. View "Rooney v. Rock-Tenn Converting Co." on Justia Law