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

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government in a suit by Union Pacific to recover a refund of about $75 million in taxes that it paid the federal government from 1991 to 2007 under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The court held that the RRTA unambiguously does not require payment of RRTA taxes on remuneration in stock. Furthermore, the RRTA does not require Union Pacific to pay taxes when it made so-called ratification payments to employees when their unions ratified collective bargaining agreements. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The family of the deceased and administrator of his estate filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), after a radiologist with the VA failed to identify a cancerous mass. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States, holding that although the VA failed to deliver the standard of care that the deceased deserved, the evidence presented was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the VA's negligence proximately caused plaintiffs' damages. Because the medical malpractice claims failed, so too must the wrongful-death claims. View "Day v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief for petitioner, who was convicted of second degree murder following a jury trial in state court and sentenced as a habitual offender to 80 years in prison. The court held that trial counsel and appellate counsel could not have been ineffective for not renewing objections to the exclusion of that evidence where the state court found that evidence of the victim's character was not an essential element of petitioner's accident defense and thus was not admissible; the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior assaults with knives did not prevent petitioner from presenting his defense of accident; and, because the evidence was properly excluded under Arkansas law, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to renew the issue or raise it on appeal. View "Rainer v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted en banc review and held that a state juvenile delinquency adjudication is a "prior conviction" under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1). The en banc court held that, because federal law distinguishes between criminal convictions and juvenile delinquency adjudications, and because section 2252(b)(1) mentions only convictions, juvenile delinquency adjudications do not trigger that statute's 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, the en banc court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Gauld" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 172 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court erred by expressing the belief that the defendant had the burden of demonstrating that it was clearly improbable knives were used in connection with the drug-dealing offense. Nonetheless, the error was harmless and not subject to correction on appeal because the district court's ultimate finding that the dangerous-weapon enhancement applied was not clear error. View "United States v. Ashburn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 57 months after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that there was no procedural error, finding that the district court's "clearly announced" recognition of his prior arrests were in fact only arrests -- not convictions -- prevailed over a conflicting statement in the written judgment. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court acted within its broad discretion by concluding that the aggravating factors far outweighed the mitigating factors. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

Jeannie Vanette Hill Thomas appealed the district court's denial of her motion to intervene in Connie Jean Smith's class action against appellees, based on her interest in adequacy of representation by the class representative and class counsel. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court's determination on this question was final, and the district court's rationale for denying the motion was inadequate. Accordingly, the court remanded for further consideration. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of Thomas's appeal that was based on her interest in the adequacy of notice and opt-out procedures for the class. View "Smith v. SEECO, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the IJ's credibility finding was rooted in numerous inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and the record, the implausibility of certain events, and a lack of corroborating evidence. Therefore, substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum. Because withholding of removal and CAT claims were based on the same discredited testimony, these claims also failed. View "Kegeh v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine (Count One), and use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (Count Two). The court held that a reasonable jury could find the government proved the single conspiracy charged in the indictment; defendant could not show prejudice from any multiple-conspiracy variance; defendant's claim that he was prejudiced because the indictment denied him adequate notice of the evidence against him was without merit; the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in not giving a more specific unanimity instruction for Count Two; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where there was overwhelming evidence to support the verdict on each count and the court declined to second-guess the district court's evaluation of witness credibility; and defendant was not entitled to new counsel where lack of communication results from a defendant's refusal to speak with counsel, rather than counsel's ineffectiveness. View "United States v. Delacruz" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that Nebraska's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4003(1)(a)(iv), did not apply to A.W., as a juvenile delinquent that engaged in conduct constituting first-degree criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota. Under both Minnesota and Nebraska law, an adjudication of delinquency was not a criminal proceeding, nor did it result in a conviction; the plain and ordinary meaning of "sex offender" was to be ascertained with respect to Nebraska law; and "sex offender" was ordinarily understood as a person who has been convicted of a crime involving unlawful sexual conduct. View "A.W. v. Wood" on Justia Law