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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for firearms-related charges. The court held that the district court properly allowed the evidence of the photo line up to go to the jury because the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive. The court reasoned that even if defendant were in fact the only Native American, all of the men featured in the lineup shared similar physical characteristics such that defendant's ethnicity did not isolate him. Furthermore, defendant cited no legal authority for his proposition that including only one local resident and party attendee made the lineup suggestive. View "United States v. Whitewater" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement to divide jointly owned assets, and the Agreement contained an arbitration clause. The court held that, because a valid arbitration clause alone does not strip the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim on that basis. Rather, the appropriate procedure would have been for the district court to stay or dismiss the case based on a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion pending arbitration. The court also held that the district court erred when it alternatively found that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. The court explained that Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motions are the more appropriate vehicles for a dismissal based on preclusion. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Seldin v. Seldin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and remanded for resentencing. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding abandonment of the cell phone at issue when the cell phone was found in a car that had driven into someone's house and where defendant fled the scene of the accident. The court also held that defendant's prior Minnesota burglary convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), and thus defendant's conviction as an armed career criminal must be vacated. View "United States v. Crumble" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 105-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court held that the district court did not err by finding that defendant's prior conviction for attempted murder under Iowa Code 707.11 was a crime of violence where the statute has as an element the use or attempted use of force; the district court did not err by applying a four-level upward departure from defendant's total offense level under USSG 5K2.6 for use of a weapon in the commission of an offense; and defendant's within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Peeples" on Justia Law

FCR filed suit against numerous defendants associated with the Life Investors Owners Participation Trust, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and conversion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that Trust section 11.9 authorized the Trustees to deduct funds from the Trust accounts to reimburse Life Investors for the money it advanced to pay for the defense in the Maryland litigation; the Trustees did indeed incur "cost" in the form of attorney's fees in defending the Maryland action unsuccessfully brought by Corrado and FCR; the Trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties; there was no material dispute as to the reasonableness of the attorney's fees because plaintiffs failed to challenge the fees; and the conversion claim failed because plaintiffs were unable to prove the first element of conversion, that their interests were subject to the terms of the Trust. View "Corrado v. Life Investors Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the county jail's postcard-only incoming-mail policy for non-privileged mail violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by impermissibly restricting her ability to communicate with her son who was then an inmate. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's exclusion into evidence of incoming-mail policies from other institutions that permitted inmates to receive multi-page letters, holding that the district court's exclusion of the other institutions' mail policies was harmless error and the postcard-only incoming-mail policy was constitutional. The court held that the postcard-only policy was rationally related to the legitimate penological interests of an efficiently run and secure institution. Furthermore, alternative means of communications were available and the policy did not limit the number of cards that could be sent. The court explained that accommodating plaintiff would result in a significant reallocation of resources and would interfere with the jail's ability to maintain security and efficiency. View "Simpson v. County of Cape Girardeau" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release based on defendant's multiple violations of drug-testing conditions and a charge of violating a new crime, domestic abuse assault by strangulation. The court held that the district court acted well within its discretion in proceeding with defendant's revocation in an efficient, legally permissible manner, and the evidence at the revocation hearing overwhelmingly supported the district court's finding that defendant committed a Grade A supervised release violation. View "United States v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

After Walter Louis Franklin, II was shot to death by officers, his estate filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of excessive force, wrongful death, and negligence. On appeal, the officers challenged the denial of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, holding that qualified immunity did not prevent suit in this case because the precise question for trial was the factual question, an issue which was inseparable from, and necessarily informed, the legal one. The court explained that factual arguments made by the officers on appeal regarding materiality and sufficiency should be made to a jury and did not run to a legal issue on appeal. View "Franklin v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Probable cause for the stop and search of a vehicle may be based on the collective knowledge of all law enforcement officers involved in the investigation and need not be based solely upon information within knowledge of the officer(s) on the scene if there is some degree of communication. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence and conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The court held that, given the collective knowledge of the investigating officers, including the corroborated confidential informant tips both previously and ongoing, the alert, and the request by officers for Trooper Thul to stop the identified vehicle, the stop itself was supported by probable cause. In this case, the collective knowledge of the investigating officers supported the traffic stop and detention of defendant, as well as his arrest. Finally, the district court did not err by denying a mitigating role reduction under USSG 3B1.2. View "United States v. Rowe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing a five-point enhancement for engaging in a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor under USSG 2G2.2(b)(5), and by adding two points to his criminal history score pursuant to USSG 4A1.1(d) for conduct substantially related to the instant offense while serving under a criminal justice sentence. View "United States v. Chambers" on Justia Law