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

Defendant appealed his 300 month sentence after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and attempt to obstruct justice. The court concluded that the district court did not rely on objected-to facts in the presentencing report to calculate the drug quantity; the relevant responsive evidence had already been produced at trial, which the Government relied on to meet its burden regarding drug quantity at sentencing; the district court did not clearly err in determining acts outside the scope of the conspiracy was relevant conduct; there was no error in relying on a witness's testimony because the testimony bore indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy; and, because of possible embellishment, the district court attributed only one pound of ice meth to defendant, discounting the others. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 360 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a three-level role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) because defendant was a manager or supervisor in the conspiracy, a two-level enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(2) for the use of violence, and a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2D1.1 for maintaining his residence for substantial drug-trafficking activities. Finally, the court explained that it need not consider defendant's claim that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity because, even if the district court erred, such error would be harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to 200 months in prison. The Supreme Court subsequently invalidated the residual clause of the ACCA in Johnson v. United States, and the district court vacated defendant's original sentence, imposing a 120-month sentence. On appeal, defendant challenged his revised sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of the firearm in connection with another felon. The court also concluded that any error in the classification of his prior conviction for third-degree non-residential burglary under Minnesota law was harmless because the district court expressly determined it would have imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Pate" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence and conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that petitioner waived any objection to the district court's admission of Attachment B of the cooperation agreement; the district court committed no error in not declaring a mistrial sua sponte, because trial counsel could not have testified that defendant's prior attorney made prior inconsistent statements because trial counsel never confronted the attorney with his prior inconsistent statements; and the court rejected defendant's claim that sufficient evidence exists to support his public-authority defense. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to his sentence, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion for retesting the purity of the methamphetamine and his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion; the district court erred in applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement; and the district court erred in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner plead guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing and this court granted a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that petitioner failed to show a substantial likelihood that he would have accepted the offer to plead guilty pursuant to the more favorable terms offered prior to the suppression hearing. Consequently, petitioner has not proven that counsel's advice prejudiced his defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's section 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. United States" on Justia Law

General Mills terminated employees and offered them benefits in exchange for releasing all Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 626(f)(1), claims and arbitrating release-related disputes. Plaintiffs, 33 employees who signed releases, subsequently filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the releases were not "knowing and voluntary." Plaintiffs also raised collective and individual ADEA claims. The district court denied General Mills' motion to compel arbitration. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the agreement to arbitrate applies only to claims "relating to" the release of claims, and their substantive ADEA claims are not related to the release of claims. Rather, the court found that the agreements' "relating to" sentence showed the parties' intent to arbitrate both disputes about the release and substantive ADEA claims. Therefore, the ADEA claims were covered by the agreements. The court explained that, absent a contrary congressional command, General Mills can compel employees who signed the agreements to arbitrate their ADEA claims. In this case, the court concluded that no "contrary congressional command" overrides the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., mandate to enforce the parties' agreement to arbitrate substantive ADEA claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "McLeod v. General Mills, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence. The court concluded that the officer in this case was faced with circumstances that, as a whole, were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion necessary to justify extending the traffic stop. The court also concluded that the traffic stop in this case exceeded neither the constitutional boundaries set forth in the court's then-extant decisions nor those set forth in Rodriguez v. United States. In this case, the traffic stop was not impermissibly expanded or prolonged, the passenger's consent to search the truck was valid, the continued detention to search the truck pursuant to that consent was permissible, and the ensuing search of the truck was lawful. The court further concluded that, under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the officer was permitted to search every part of the vehicle and its contents that could conceal drug-related contraband, including the air compressor. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. Finally, the court concluded that the district court exceeded its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) when it ordered that defendant be removed as a special condition of supervision. The court modified the judgment to reflect the change in the special condition. As modified, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Murillo-Salgado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against F&G, an insurance company and its affiliates, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), alleging that F&G committed numerous acts of mail and wire fraud in the course of a bookcooking scheme. The district court granted F&G's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted based on the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1012(b). The court concluded that plaintiff's RICO claims would interfere with state regulation of the insurance business, and the claims were thus barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ludwick v. Harbinger Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Board ruled that Missouri Red committed an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by refusing to recognize and collectively bargain with the union. The Board certified the union only after it upheld a challenge to Steve Johnston's potentially determinative ballot by declaring him a statutory supervisor and thus not entitled to vote. Missouri Red contended that this was error and petitioned for review of the Board's decision. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Johnson was a supervisor and exercised independent judgment in effectively recommending applicants for hire; the Board did not act capriciously in finding that Johnson exercised independent judgment; and a number of secondary indicia supported the Board's determination that Johnston is a supervisor. Therefore, the court denied Missouri Red's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "NLRB v. Missouri Red Quarries, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 227 months in prison in 2005 for his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and one count of violent crime in aid of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(3). In 2015, defendant moved to reduce his sentence based upon amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines, but the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that the district court's standing order appointing a public defender to represent all defendants who may be eligible to seek a sentence reduction under amendment 782 did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to proceed pro se; the court extended the Supreme Court's holding in Martinez and held that defendants do not have a due process right to self representation at postconviction sentence reduction proceedings; the district court is not required to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party; the district court did not violate defendant's due process rights; and the court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant a sentence reduction where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court acknowledged defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation efforts; and the district court did not create a new sentence when it declined to modify his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tollefson" on Justia Law