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

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of his sentence based on the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was ultimately sentenced to 108 months in prison. Defendant challenged the calculation of his sentencing guidelines range, the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and certain special conditions of his supervised release. In this case, defendant signed a plea agreement and assented again at the plea hearing. Therefore, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. View "United States v. Cooney" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's claim under 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging that counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to testimony concerning his statement to an agent or to a remark the Government made during closing arguments about his decision not to testify. Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to life in prison. The court held that counsel did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the Government's use of his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda statement to the agent. Given the split of authority at the time petitioner was tried, and the complete lack of Eighth Circuit or Supreme Court authority on the subject, counsel's performance fell within the wide range of professionally competent assistance. View "Long v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the dean of the University of Iowa College of Law had rejected her applications to teach legal analysis and writing at the law school due to political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. After two remands and a jury trial, plaintiff challenged the denial of her motion for a new trial. The Eighth Circuit noted the routine failure of plaintiff's main brief to cite the parts of the record on which she relied and rejected some of her arguments on that basis. The court denied plaintiff's claim that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her discrimination claim based on lack of jurisdiction. Finally, any claims of error regarding the district court's decision not to instruct the jury on punitive damages was moot in light of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Manning v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of knowingly making a false statement with respect to a material fact in an immigration matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant failed to disclose a material fact, whether materiality is an issue of fact or law in a section 1546(a) prosecution. In this case, the alien relative visa petition (Form I-130) asked, "Have you ever before filed a petition for this or any other alien?" Defendant falsely checked "no." View "United States v. Samuels" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order denying Article III standing to Respondent Bonnie George, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. George filed a class action against petitioners, alleging loss of benefit-of-the-bargain for the diminution in the value of structures containing corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST). The court held that George's assertions of paying more than CSST was worth and the consequent loss in value of the structures were economic injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Omega Flex, Inc. v. George" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of actual methamphetamine and three counts of distributing five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to meaningful cross-examination when the district court did not allow defendant to use these prior convictions to show that a government witness' motive to testify for the government was to avoid increased punishment if he was charged with being a felon in possession of the firearm found in his residence. In this case, more than ten years had passed since any confinement and defendant failed to show that its probative value substantially outweighed its prejudice. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give a buyer-seller instruction to the jury. View "United States v. Babb" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former participants in the Drug Court, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and others, alleging that Scott Edwards, the former lieutenant of the sheriff's department, violated their substantive due process rights by committing repeated acts of sexual abuse while serving in his position as the "tracker" (monitor) of Drug Court participants. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the county's post-verdict motion. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the county was deliberately indifferent to the obvious risk that its failure to supervise Edwards would result in violation of plaintiffs' rights. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the county's motion for a new trial based on the jury's damage awards. View "S.M. v. Lincoln County, Missouri" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the district court's judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016).The Eighth Circuit applied the categorical approach and held that petitioner's prior conviction for use of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3) is not a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court held that section 924(c)(3) is not divisible where a judge decides whether an underlying offense constitutes a crime of violence, and the definition of crime of violence as it is used in section 924(c)(1) is contained in a separate statutory section, section 924(c)(3). Furthermore, petitioner's substantial rights were affected. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Boman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's sole claim remaining on remand -- that American Century breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by taking discretionary action to retaliate in violation of public policy. The court held that the Supreme Court of Missouri's decision in Bishop & Assocs., LLC, v. Ameren Corp., 520 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. banc. 2017), limits plaintiff's claim for breach of American Century's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the "reasonable expectation" ground that was dismissed with prejudice in Kmak I. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff failed to show good cause to amend. View "Kmak v. American Century Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's above-Guidelines sentence of 60 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering improper factors in determining the sentence. Rather, instead of relying on categorical rules in setting the sentencing, the district court made individualized observations about defendant's past conduct and the need for deterrence in light of defendant's history and personal characteristics. Furthermore, the district court specifically addressed and weighed a number of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Stone" on Justia Law