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

Petitioner, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the former Yugoslavia, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's finding that petitioner was ineligible for relief from removal because he failed to prove he was not an alien who committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings under color of law of any foreign nation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(iii). The IJ found petitioner removable because, at the time of his admittance and adjustment of status, he concealed that he had served in the Army of the Serb Republic, Vojska Republika Srpske (VRS). The court explained that DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was removable because he was inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful misrepresentation of a material fact, and thus the issue was whether he was eligible for waiver relief from that removal under section 1227(a)(1)(H). Because petitioner concedes that he was removable for willful misrepresentation and DHS's evidence indicates that he may have participated or assisted in extrajudicial killings at Srebrenica in July, 1995, the court denied the petition for review. The court lacked jurisdiction to grant petitioner's request for voluntary departure. View "Maric v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendants, alleging claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that defendants published false information to discredit and humiliate him in retaliation for his public allegations that he was sexually abused by priests. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's orders denying plaintiff's motion for remand and dismissing his causes of action for failure to state a claim. The court agreed with defendants that Missouri Defendants McLiney and O'Laughlin were fraudulently joined; Defendants KCCL sufficiently consented to removal; and thus the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for remand. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's defamation claim as time-barred under Missouri's borrowing statute. Because plaintiff alleged that false statements injured his reputation, defamation, not invasion of privacy, was in fact the basis of his cause of action. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. View "Couzens, Jr. v. Donohue" on Justia Law

The district court entered stays of execution in an action brought by nine Arkansas prisoners under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The prisoners were all convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The court granted the State's motion to vacate the stays, concluding that the prisoners could have brought their section 1983 method-of-execution claim much earlier and intentionally declined to do so; the district court's conclusion concerning the use of midazolam in the Arkansas execution protocol did not apply the governing standard; the district court's factual findings would not support a conclusion that the prisoners have a likelihood of success in showing that the execution protocol is sure or very likely to cause severe pain; the court disagreed with the legal standard that the district court applied in determining whether alternative methods of execution are known and available; and, even assuming a risk of pain from the current method, the availability of the several methods cited by the district court is too uncertain to satisfy the rigorous standard under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court vacated the stays of execution. View "McGehee v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government in this action to reduce a tax lien to judgment and foreclose upon real property. The court concluded that an underlying Tax Court appeal taxpayer filed in March 2006 served to toll the limitations period applicable to the government's current collection efforts. The court explained that, in the unique circumstances of this extremely tardy challenge, taxpayer cannot rely upon the absence of evidence of a date of mailing to carry her own heavy burden to disprove the Tax Court's jurisdiction over her 2006 appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Giaimo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA applied the proper de novo standard for reviewing the IJ's finding that petitioner had not demonstrated an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution and future persecution; substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum; and thus petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, III" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 36 month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after a previous removal and commission of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by applying a sixteen-level enhancement because defendant's prior conviction of domestic assault under Minn. Stat. 609.2242, subdivision 4, was a crime of violence. The court explained that this case was controlled by the reasoning in United States v. Schaffer, where this court determined that an act undertaken with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death necessarily involves a threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Romero-Orbe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for three offenses related to his participation in a marijuana trafficking scheme. Defendant procured, packaged, and sent marijuana from California to Nebraska for distribution. Defendant and his cousin used a joint bank account to deposit and withdraw funds derived from the conspiracy and disguised the nature of the funds. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of conspiracy to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, money laundering, and racketeering. Accordingly, the court affirmed, the judgment. View "United States v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict; evidence about past events was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); the court agreed with the district court judge's determination that the investigation and prosecution of defendant's conspiracy offense occurred after she was U.S. Attorney and thus she had no conflict of interest and recusal was not required; the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and made no clearly erroneous factual finding; and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Finally, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw. View "United States v. Norwood" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants in state court on behalf of a class comprising of all persons who were Arkansas Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries who were treated at one of the defendant hospitals and who had similar liens placed on their third-party claims by RevClaims. Defendants removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). After plaintiff filed an amended complaint defining the proposed class as all Arkansas citizens who were Arkansas Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries, the case was remanded to state court. The court concluded that section 1332(a)'s citizenship/residency distinction applies in section 1332(d)(4). "Citizen" means the same in both subsections—and that meaning is not synonymous with "resident." Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that merely alleging a proposed class of Arkansas residents was sufficient to satisfy section 1334(d)(4). In this case, plaintiff could have met her burden by producing evidence or by defining her class to include only Arkansas citizens, merely alleging residency was not enough. The court noted that the district court cited no authority for ordering plaintiff to restrict her class definition through an amended complaint before remand. Finally, the court explained that nothing the court said about residency and citizenship means that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The court reversed the remand order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hargett v. RevClaims, LLC" on Justia Law

Midamar Corporation and Jalel Aossey conditionally plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit several offenses in connection with a scheme to sale falsely labeled halal meat. William Aossey was convicted of conspiracy, making false statements on export certificates, and wire fraud in connection with the scheme. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss, arguing that Congress had reserved exclusive enforcement authority over the alleged statutory violations to the Secretary of Agriculture, and that the United States Attorney could not proceed against defendants in a criminal prosecution. The court rejected defendants' contention that two sections of the Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 674 and 607(e), show that Congress removed these prosecutions from the jurisdiction of the district courts. Rather, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss, because Congress afforded the Executive two independent avenues to address false or misleading meat labeling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aossey, Jr." on Justia Law