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

Defendant appealed his 98 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and two counts of distribution of a controlled substance. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving more weight to defendant's criminal history than to the drug quantity in his charge; the district court did not give significant weight to an improper factor and the court rejected defendant's contention that it improperly weighed the unsubstantiated assertion that he got a "rush" from selling drugs; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its final determination of defendant's sentence where the sentence was necessary to achieve the statutory aims of federal criminal punishment, which include deterrence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boykin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order denying his motion to suppress after he was convicted of possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle. Officers discovered firearms in defendant's vehicle after they responded to a report of a road rage incident where a driver brandished a firearm. The court concluded that the warrantless search of defendant's vehicle was reasonable under the second exception in Arizona v. Grant. In this case, officers reasonably believed defendant's vehicle might contain evidence relevant to his arrest for terroristic threatening because defendant confirmed he was the driver of the SUV and involved in the earlier road rage incident, defendant told the officers he "probably" had a firearm in his vehicle, the 911 caller positively identified defendant as the driver who brandished a gun at him during the reported road rage incident, and a witness observed defendant concealing something in the rear hatch of his SUV. The court, along with its sister circuits, have held the hatchback or rear hatch area of a vehicle was a part of the passenger compartment as long as an occupant could reach that area while inside the vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stegall" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that BNSF violated the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, when it terminated his employment for harassing a co-worker and threatening a supervisor. The district court ultimately granted BNSF summary judgment on the merits and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim because he failed to submit evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to infer that his FRSA-protected activities were a contributing factor in BNSF's decision to discharge him for harassing and intimidating a co-worker. Because BNSF did not sufficiently develop its alternative waiver argument, did not raise a laches or estoppel defense in the district court or on appeal, and presented insufficient proof (if any) on these fact intensive issues, the court left these questions for another day. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gunderson v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

In five consolidated appeals, defendants challenged the denial of their motions for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for convictions of methamphetamine conspiracy offenses. At issue was whether section 3582(c)(2) relief was now available because Amendment 782 to the Guidelines retroactively reduced by two levels the base offense levels assigned to drug quantities, lowering the advisory guidelines range for most drug offenses. The court concluded that these defendants were not eligible for a section 3582(c)(2) reduction because their sentences were not "based on" a guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Koons" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a minimum 15 year sentence. The court concluded that, based on the intervening circuit precedent in United States v. Bell, defendant's prior second-degree robbery in Missouri was not a violent felony under the ACCA, and defendant therefore does not qualify as an armed career criminal. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Swopes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of employees who participated in ABB's retirement plans, filed suit alleging that ABB and its fiduciaries managed the plans for their own benefit, rather than for the participants. In an earlier appeal, the court directed the district court to "reevaluate" how the participants might have been injured if the ABB fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., when they changed the investment options for the plans. The district court misunderstood the court's direction for a definitive ruling on how to measure plan losses and thus entered judgment for the ABB fiduciaries even though the district court found that they breached their duties. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment on that claim and remanded for further consideration regarding whether the participants can prove losses to the plans. The court also vacated and remanded the district court's award of attorney fees because the court reopened one of the participant's substantive claims. View "Tussey v. ABB, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States and sentenced to 51 months in prison. The court concluded that the occupant of the apartment where defendant was found voluntarily consented to entry; articulable facts warranted the agents' lawful protective sweep where the agents knew that defendant had a prior conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer and that he may be present in the apartment; the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom; and defendant's requests for suppression of all evidence was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ortega-Montalvo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of her minor son J.M., filed suit against the School District, alleging unlawful use of isolation and physical restraints, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), RSMo 213.010 et seq. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claim. In this case, plaintiff did not file an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., due process complaint, request a due process hearing, or engage in the exhaustion procedures under the IDEA. The court concluded that because the complaint sought relief available under the IDEA, denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), the claims were subject to exhaustion, barring an applicable exception. The court rejected plaintiff's futility and inadequate remedy arguments and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "J.M. v. Francis Howell School District" on Justia Law

After Jerome Harrell died while in custody at the county jail, Harrell's estate filed suit against the county and various correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of Harrell's constitutional rights as well as other claims. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that genuine issues of fact remain on the question of whether defendants Armstrong and Culloton were deliberately indifferent to Harrell's serious medical needs when they allowed him to scream, howl, and bang against his cell door for eight hours without attempting to talk to him or seek medical intervention. Therefore, the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Armstrong and Culloton on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the court reversed as to this issue. The court concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the trustee's excessive force claim where, among other things, Harrell was actively resisting the extraction procedure by ignoring directives to lie down on his bunk and resisting defendants' efforts to subdue him once they entered his cell, and defendants' testimony about the degree of Harrell's resistance was corroborated. Under the totality of these circumstances, none of the defendants' actions, either singly or in combination, amounted to an objectively unreasonable application of force. Therefore, the court affirmed as to the excessive force claim. Because the court was remanding some of the federal claims, the court also vacated the dismissal of the state law claims and remanded. View "Ryan v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Petitioners Hernandez-Martinez and Dominguez-Herrera, non-permanent residents of the United States and a married couple, sought review of the denial of their consolidated applications for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The court concluded that petitioners failed to meet their burden under the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4), to establish their eligibility for cancellation of removal where both petitioners have committed a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, Hernandez-Martinez had been convicted of theft in the municipal court of Hutchinson, Kansas, and Dominguez-Herrera had been convicted of theft in the municipal court of Great Bend, Kansas, which was a criminal offense, and the crimes were punishable by a year or more in prison. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Dominguez-Herrera v. Sessions" on Justia Law