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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to discharge a restitution obligation resulting from defendant's involvement in a fraud scheme as the owner of a life insurance company. The court held that the time limit on criminal appeals was a claims-processing rule so even if the prior panel mistakenly applied the rule governing civil appeals, there was no bar to the court's consideration of the current appeal. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied defendant's motion on the merits because the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), did not provide authority to reduce the amount of a restitution obligation to match the value of a negotiated settlement with the victim in civil proceedings. Consequently, the district court did not have authority to grant defendant's request to deem the restitution obligation discharged if he paid the negotiated settlement. The district court, however, did not foreclose defendant from seeking relief under section 3664(j)(2)(B) upon a proper showing, and neither did the court. View "United States v. Whitbeck" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, MAT, alleging retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of MAT, holding that a supervisor's comment -- viewed most favorably to plaintiff -- was sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action. In this case, the supervisor stated that plaintiff would be "on the street" if he did not falsify testing data regarding a particular product. The court explained that the comment provided a specific link between plaintiff's protected conduct and his termination. View "Sellner v. MAT Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for three crimes related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Even assuming that the district court improperly excluded defendant's proposed post-indictment prescription evidence for pseudoephedrine and she adequately preserved and presented her constitutional argument to the district court, the Eighth Circuit held that the exclusion of that evidence did not affect her substantial rights or materially influence the verdict. In this case, evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. The court explained that, though largely contradicted by the balance of the medical evidence, defendant was still able to present her defense that she legitimately bought use quantities of pseudoephedrine to self-treat her COPD during the time at issue. Furthermore, the exclusion of that evidence did not deprive her of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

General Mills filed an adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt in debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Applying Minnesota law to its preclusion analysis, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's rejection of debtor's claim preclusion defense. In this case, because all claims between codefendants were dismissed without prejudice by stipulation, there was no final adjudication on the merits. Furthermore, because General Mills' adversary claim arose from its rights and remedies with respect to debtor's execution of a promissory note secured by the property at issue, there was no final adjudication of that issue. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court as to issue preclusion as well. The court rejected debtor's claim of judicial estoppel where General Mills did not take inconsistent positions. The court also held that General Mills' fraud claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; rejected debtor's challenges to the bankruptcy court's evidentiary rulings; and affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that debtor's debt was not dischargeable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hernandez v. General Mills Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the short time period before trial and the concern for efficiency in presenting evidence supported the district court's decision to combine the evidentiary hearing with defendant's bench trial, and to defer ruling on the motion to suppress until all evidence had been presented; there was no structural error undermining the fairness of the criminal proceeding as a whole; no constitutional error occurred when the district court considered defendant's suppression testimony for the purpose of determining his guilt where, at no point either before or during his testimony, did defendant or his attorney explicitly request his testimony be limited only to the motion to suppress; and the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence where defendant consented to a search, and did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Hardison" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 130 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not commit procedural error at sentencing by increasing defendant's guideline offense level by five levels under USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) where the increase did not affect defendant's sentence and he did not suffer prejudice from any error in applying section 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). Therefore, the court need not address whether the district court's finding was adequately supported because any error in applying the five-level increase was harmless. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 108 months in prison after he pleaded guilty for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not commit procedural error by applying a cross-reference to USSG 2A3.1 and subsequent four- and two-level enhancements. In this case, the district court did not err by relying on hearsay testimony because it possessed sufficient indicia of reliability. Furthermore, the Confrontation Clause did not apply at sentencing hearings and defendant's Sixth Amendment challenge was therefore dismissed. View "United States v. Sheridan" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee filed suit against Pennie Glasser, seeking to recover from her, as a preference, a payment made by debtor to her. Glass is the former wife of an insider of debtor, as well as a minor investor and employee of debtor at the time of payment. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that Glasser was not an insider of debtor and the payment was not an avoidable preference under 11 U.S.C. 547(b) and Minnesota Statute 513.45(b). In this case, Glasser did not have sufficient closeness to be treated as an insider. View "Seaver v. Glasser" on Justia Law

Class representatives challenged the district court's denial of their motion to enforce the settlement agreement in a securities settlement, and the district court's denial of a subsequent motion to alter or amend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court explained that this case continues to present a live controversy and the Stipulation explicitly granted that the district court would have continuing jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing the agreement and addressing settlement administration matters. The court also held that the case was not prudentially moot where the district court has the ability to provide an effective remedy; the district court did not err in interpreting the Stipulation according to its unambiguous meaning and in holding that defendants complied with the Stipulation's payment obligations; and the district court did not err by holding that the meaning of the Stipulation was unambiguous as matter of law and, in doing so, the district court did not place a burden of proof on any party. View "Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that GCF violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the annual percentage rate (APR) and finance charge in his Retail Installment and Security Contract. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law where the Summary of Understanding was not completely integrated; the district court thus did not err in admitting parol evidence; and there was sufficient evidence to support GCF's affirmative defense of waiver. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial where there was no record of what objections plaintiff would have raised had the district court turned on "white noise" during the initial portion of the trial, nor was he prejudiced; even if the district court erred by not sustaining plaintiff's objection to GCF's counsel's statement during closing argument, the statement was not such a magnitude that a new trial was warranted; the court rejected plaintiff's claims of error as to the discretionary evidentiary rulings; and there was no error in the district court's response to a jury question. View "Smiley v. Gary Crossley Ford, Inc." on Justia Law