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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for interstate transportation of child pornography and possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not commit plain error when it permitted the government to introduce an FBI Special Agent's testimony describing adult pornographic materials found on his laptop and testimony describing images saved to the laptop. In this case, the challenged testimony and exhibits were clearly relevant to the key disputed issue at trial: whether defendant was guilty of knowing possession and interstate transportation of child pornography found on his encrypted computer devices. The district court did not commit plain error by providing the jury a willful blindness, or deliberate indifference, instruction. Finally, defendant's below-Guidelines sentence of 144 months in prison was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Novak" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine base, and fentanyl, and two counts of distributing fentanyl. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior drug-dealing conviction; the district court did not violate the Confrontation Clause by limiting defendant's cross-examination of a government witness about his potential life sentence; and the undisclosed impeachment evidence related to four customer witnesses did not violate Brady v. Maryland where there was no likelihood that the information would have resulted in a different verdict and evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a 300 month sentence on remand where defendant was convicted of stealing more than $10 million dollars from at least 69 victims as part of a Ponzi scheme. The court held that the district court did not err by applying an enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense involved sophisticated means and an enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(19)(A) for violation of securities laws by an investment adviser. Finally, the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Meadows" on Justia Law

An arbitrator upheld Cooper Tire's discharge of an employee for his conduct on the picket line. The ALJ reversed, holding that Cooper's firing violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., and the Board affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied Cooper's petition for review and enforced the Board's order, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the employee's statements were not violent in character and did not contain any over or implied threats to replacement workers or their property. Furthermore, the statements were also unaccompanied by any threatening behavior or physical acts of intimidation. The court also held that reinstating the employee would not conflict with its obligations under Title VII where the employee's comments did not create a hostile work environment; because the employee was discharged for a prohibited reason, Cooper did not fire him for cause under section 10(c); and the Board did not abuse its discretion by not deferring to the arbitrator's award. View "Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Paris Limousine filed suit against Executive Coach, alleging that limousines it purchased from Executive Coach were in breach of warranty. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that Paris Limousine brought its express warranty claim under Missouri law, which authorizes private enforcement actions for breaches of express warranties. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards did not affect Executive Coach’s potential liability under Missouri law for breach of its express warranty. The court also held that Executive Coach had not met its burden to demonstrate that conflict preemption applied, and that Paris Limousine had alleged legally cognizable damages. View "Paris Limousine of OK, LLC v. Executive Coach Builders, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against three state officials to challenge provisions of Missouri law that authorize roving stops of certain vehicles for inspection without suspicion. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff had standing to sue the superintendent, and his claims against her for injunctive and declaratory relief were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment; claims against the governor and the attorney general were properly dismissed, because there was no case or controversy between plaintiff and those officials; Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.230.1, .2, and .7 can be applied constitutionally to participants in the commercial trucking industry under New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987), and the provisions were not unconstitutional on their face; but it was error for the district court to dismiss plaintiff's as-applied claims against the superintendent for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the meaning of "person" under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Calzone v. Hawley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 96 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a "means of identification" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i). In this case, defendant and his coconspirators transferred the bank account and routing numbers from a fictitious business entity, not an individual. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully explained why it concluded that an upward variance was warranted. View "United States v. Weaver" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner. Petitioner raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsel's deficient performance during plea negotiations and for failing to object to the sudden-quarrel jury instruction as a step instruction for second-degree murder. The court held that petitioner adequately, though possibly inartfully, presented the due process claims to the Nebraska Supreme Court, and that the court adjudicated them; the state court's adjudication was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent; and the adjudication also was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. View "Iromuanya v. Frakes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's recommendation that her federal sentence run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed sentence in Iowa state court. Because defendant's state court case was dismissed during the pendency of this appeal, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. View "United States v. McHatten" 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 in allowing the name and nature of defendant's prior felony convictions into evidence because defendant never agreed to a stipulation that he had a prior felony conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two prior felony convictions as oppose to just one; any error in admitting evidence of a third gun was harmless; and defendant voluntarily forfeited his constitutional right to be present at his trial considering defendant's conduct in court the day before and the marshals' report of his refusal to even leave his cell for the second day of trial. View "United States v. Hellems" on Justia Law