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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for interstate stalking after he created publicly accessible social media accounts in which he portrayed his ex-girlfriend as an exotic dancer and prostitute. He contacted her employer and her family and friends, and stated that he would continue to make these representations unless he received an apology from her. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, because defendant's communications to his ex-girlfriend and others were unprotected speech integral to criminal conduct. In this case, the communications were integral to the crime of extortion under 18 U.S.C. 875(d). Finally, the district court did not err by awarding restitution to the ex-girlfriend where defendant's offense proximately caused her change in residence and expenses. View "United States v. Hobgood" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review challenging the denial of petitioner's application for a waiver and order of removal. The court held that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's admission of the ex-husband's affidavit and the USCIS report without granting petitioner's request for a subpoena or otherwise providing petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the ex-husband. The court also held that this error was prejudicial and rendered petitioner's removal hearing fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for remand under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), based on her now-husband's pending visa petition on her behalf, which would give petitioner the opportunity to adjust status independent of the conditional status she received by way of her marriage to her ex-husband. In this case, petitioner faced no accusations of fraud or willful misrepresentations, the IJ declined to make an adverse credibility finding, and the IJ explicitly acknowledged that petitioner had not been charged with entering into a marriage by fraud, or for paying for a marriage. View "Patel v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in providing the theory-of-defense instruction on consent. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding defendant's counsel to the amount of time that he told the court he needed for closing argument -- one hour. In this case, the total amount of time afforded to defendant's counsel was reasonable for a day-and-a-half trial. View "United States v. Cobenais" on Justia Law

After debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, MDSS filed a proof of claim for an unsecured domestic support obligation (DSO) to pay spousal and child support arrears to one of the debtor's prior spouses. MDSS then filed an amended proof of claim in a higher amount and debtors objected. The Eighth Circuit held that the BAP correctly ruled that the disallowed portion of MDSS's DSO claim was not subject to the discharge injunction imposed when the bankruptcy court granted debtors a discharge. The court explained that that ruling eliminated the basis for the bankruptcy court's sanctions order. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to address the bankruptcy court's contempt order sanctions. Finally, the court declined to render an advisory opinion on the additional issues raised in MDSS's cross-appeal. View "Missouri v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The Fund filed suit against defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), alleging that it had a right to a portion of a negligence settlement attributable to medical expenses. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Fund, considering defendants' admissions that the settlement agreements included the claim for medical expenses. Therefore, the Fund was entitled to whatever was recovered for medical expenses in the settlement action. View "Mackey v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After hackers accessed the internal database of Scottrade, plaintiff and others filed a putative class action against Scottrade. The district court concluded that plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he had not suffered injury in fact and dismissed the Consolidated Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff had Article III standing because he alleged a concrete and particularized breach of contract and "actual" injury. The court held, however, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of an express contract where the allegation that the failure of Scottrade's security measures was a breach of contract that diminished the benefit of plaintiff's bargain was not plausible; claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment were dismissed for the same failure to allege plausible claims; plaintiff's bare bones claim for declaratory relief was virtually unintelligible; and plaintiff failed to plausibly allege how failing to discover and notify customers of the data breach qualified as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the state statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. View "Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order affirming the ALJ's denial of plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that the ALJ erred in relying on his own inferences about what plaintiff's medical providers meant when they noted in her medical records that she was in "no acute distress" and had "normal movement of all extremities" to determine her residual functioning capacity. The court explained that remand was necessary so the ALJ may conduct further inquiry as to what relevance plaintiff's being in "no acute distress" and having "normal movement of all extremities" has in terms of plaintiff's ability to function in the workplace. View "Combs v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The failure to satisfy the warning requirements of 8 C.F.R. 240.25 does not preclude a finding of a voluntary departure under threat of deportation sufficient to break the ten-year period of continuous presence required to be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal from the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal of a nonpermanent resident alien under section 1229b(b). The court held that petitioner voluntarily departed the country under a threat of deportation, thus breaking his continuous presence here. View "Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of a warrant to search his residence. Defendant had pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that probable cause supported the search warrant and the search was conducted in good faith, even though the magistrate judge issuing the search warrant was not properly cross-designated to issue warrants for property located outside of his district. View "United States v. Ortiz-Cervantes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence concerning a prior 2015 shooting in light of the strong probative value of the evidence and admitting the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to defendant. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence relating to defendant's prior felony conviction in 2006 for reckless use of a firearm, resulting in a gunshot wound, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Furthermore, the district court gave a limiting instruction to the jury. View "United States v. Buckner" on Justia Law