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

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, armed criminal action, and first-degree assault, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. Petitioner argued that the State failed to disclose that a key prosecution witness received favorable consideration in exchange for his testimony. The court noted that, even if it had reason to doubt compliance with the statute of limitations in this case, the court proceeded to the merits in the interest of judicial economy. On the merits, the court concluded that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland nor Napue v. Illinois where nothing in the factual findings indicated that the district court's finding that no formal or tacit agreement existed between the State and the witness was reasonable. The court assumed that the financial assistance the witness received for staying in a hotel for one week and relocating to another apartment was subject to Brady's disclosure mandate. However, failure to disclose this information here did not violate Brady because it did not undermine confidence in the verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "White v. Steele" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and order of restitution after pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud. The court concluded that the district court committed procedural error when it departed upward from the advisory sentencing guidelines and thus remanded for resentencing. In this case, the analysis the district court provided did not adequately explain and support the district court's significant departure from Criminal History Category II to Category VI. The court also concluded that defendant's appeal waiver was enforceable as to the restitution order and thus dismissed the appeal of the restitution order. View "United States v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Defendants Cooke and Cantu appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Cooke argued in his motion to dismiss that the 65 day delay between his February 18 arrest and April 24 initial appearance violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1)(A) and the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for a violation of Rule 5(a)(1)(A) is not dismissal of an indictment, but suppression of evidence illegally obtained as a result of the violation. In this case, Cooke pointed to no such evidence, he was not prejudiced by the period of delay, and he cannot identify any available remedy for an alleged violation of Rule 5. This case involved several coconspirator defendants, voluminous discovery, several requests from defendants for continuances, and motions for both Cooke's and Cantu's requests for continuances as well as their motions to withdraw. The court concluded that, given the circumstances in this case, there was no violation of Cooke's right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment based on the delay. The court also concluded that there was no procedural error in the district court's upward departure of Cooke's sentence nor was the departure substantively unreasonable. The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying an upward variance to Cooke's sentence. The court concluded that Cantu waived her challenge to the admission of text message evidence; her Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1), claim was waived; the court declined to address Cantu's ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cooke" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Mathis v. United States. The court vacated the sentence and remanded to the district court to determine whether defendant's second-degree burglary convictions were "of a building," and thus violent felonies under the ACCA. View "United States v. Preston Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to dismiss charges of federal felony offenses, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a 1905 Act of Congress diminished the Red Lake Reservation, removing the town of Redby from Indian country. The district court denied the motion and defendant conditionally plead guilty. The court concluded that the record did not adequately support the district court’s determination that Redby is part of Indian country as a matter of law. Therefore, the court vacated the order, allowed defendant to withdraw his plea, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was injured as a delivery driver for UPS and UPS failed to offer him another full time position that he was able to perform, plaintiff filed suit for disability discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to UPS. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff was not qualified to perform the essential job functions for the delivery driver position; however, the district court erred by determining as a matter of law that defendant was unable to perform the essential job functions of the feeder driver position; there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on his claim that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position; plaintiff presented evidence that UPS expected that feeder driver positions would become open in the near future; and thus defendant provided sufficient evidence to support his 2012 disability discrimination claim. In regard to the 2013 discrimination claim, plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence that he was qualified to perform the essential job functions of any available job; plaintiff failed to show that UPS failed to make a good faith effort to help him in seeking an accommodation; and thus summary judgment for UPS was appropriate as to this claim. Finally, the court concluded that defendant waived his 2013 accommodation claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Faidley v. United Parcel Service" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that defendant's indictment sufficiently charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm, set out the necessary elements for unlawful possession, and fairly informed defendant of the charge he was facing. The court also concluded that the district court correctly followed precedent and applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), enhancement where this court has unequivocally rejected defendant's argument that the jury must find the convictions used to enhance a sentence were committed on separate occasions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wyatt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 360 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court erred in relying on unproven, objected-to facts by relying on defendant's unproven conviction for second degree sexual abuse as a juvenile; the conviction was only one basis for denying defendant's requested downward variance; and defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable sentence if the district court had not relied on his unproven prior conviction. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence came within the guideline range and was amply supported by the record. Because defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Dindinger, Loring, and Freund filed suit against Allsteel, alleging claims of sex-based wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d); Dindinger and Loring also brought claims of sex-based wage discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code 216.6A, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; and Loring additionally brought a claim of sex-based discrimination for failure to promote under Title VII. On appeal, Allsteel challenged the district court's denial of its motion for a new trial and grant of plaintiffs' motions for attorney's fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court correctly instructed the jury that Allsteel could not rely on economic conditions to establish its affirmative defense to the Equal Pay Act claim that a factor other than sex justified the pay discrepancies between plaintiffs and their male comparators; even if the court were to agree that economic conditions could be a factor other than sex justifying a pay differential in some circumstances, Allsteel did not present evidence to establish such a defense here; and because Allsteel did not present evidence that economic conditions caused the pay differentials plaintiffs experienced, the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that Allsteel could not rely on economic conditions to establish an affirmative defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting "me-too" evidence; limiting Allsteel's ability to offer evidence regarding the audit; and by admitting testimony from Loring's supervisor. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in regard to attorney's fees, but remanded the issue of costs with instructions to determine whether charging clients separately for Westlaw research is the prevailing practice in Iowa. Accordingly, the court remanded as to this issue and affirmed in all other respects. View "Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc." on Justia Law

After Mark A. Sveen designated his then-wife, Kaye L. Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and his children as contingent beneficiaries, Minnesota extended its revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies. When Mark died in 2011, his children and Melin cross-claimed for the proceeds. The district court granted summary judgment to the children. The court concluded that a contested beneficiary like Melin has standing; this court has held in Whirlpool Corp. v. Ritterthat a revocation-upon-divorce statute like the one here violates the Contract Clause when applied retroactively; and thus the court's previous opinion forecloses any conclusion other than that the statute here was unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Melin v. Sveen" on Justia Law