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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing crack cocaine in an amount of 280 grams or more, and powder cocaine in an amount of 5 kilograms or more. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's drug quantity finding and two sentencing enhancements. The court concluded that the district court did not err in relying on the testimony presented to determine the total drug quantity for purposes of establishing defendant's base offense level; the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1); and the district court did not err by imposing a three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) for his role as a manager or supervisor in the criminal activity. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mannings" on Justia Law

Defendant, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and resident of the Tribe's reservation, appealed her 37 month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of child abuse. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court committed reversible error by failing to rule on her objection to the PSR's recommended two-level increase for the victim's bodily injury pursuant to USSG 2A2.3(b)(1)(A). The court reasoned that an absence of a specific ruling on defendant's objection to the PSR was not by itself a significant procedural error because the record reflected sufficient evidence for the district court's findings to receive meaningful appellate review. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding to count defendant's 40 tribal court convictions in reaching its sentence; the district court had an ample basis for discounting her alleged mitigating good behavior, especially considering her virtual repeat offense; and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court gave an individualized assessment of defendant's criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Velnita Jolette Hairy Chin" on Justia Law

This case arose out of Chipotle's decision to fire an employee who was involved in a campaign for higher pay in the fast-food industry. The Board claimed that Chipotle fired the employee for his union activities, but Chipotle argued that the employee was fired for missing a mandatory meeting and had a history of deficient performance and motivation. The Board applied the Wright Line framework and described the General Counsel's initial burden. Chipotle argued that the burden was a mistake and the General Counsel instead needed to act according to the language in the court's recent opinion in Nichols Aluminum, LLC v. NLRB. Because Chipotle failed to raise this argument before the Board, or otherwise contest the ALJ's application of the Wright Line standard, the court was jurisdictionally barred from considering Chipotle's argument. Because no extraordinary circumstances exists in this case, the court denied the petition and enforced the order. View "NLRB v. Chipotle Services" on Justia Law

After defendant sexually assaulted a fellow high school student on the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, he was was indicted in the District of Minnesota, which had jurisdiction under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, 18 U.S.C. 3261 et seq. Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2242(2), 2246(2)(A), and 3261(a)(1), and was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by the minimum supervised release term of five years. On appeal, defendant challenged two special conditions of supervised release that require him to provide any personal financial information the Probation Office requests and to obtain Probation Office approval before incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the two financial conditions with no explanation and no advance notice, which were not totally related to defendant's offense of conviction and the circumstances surrounding the offense. Accordingly, the court modified the judgment by deleting those conditions and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "United States v. Sherwood" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Board's decision and order affirming the ALJ in petitioner's Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, retaliatory termination action. The court concluded that the ALJ correctly applied the background evidence rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, which held that an employee can use prior acts as background evidence for a timely claim even when those same acts are time-barred; the court rejected petitioner's argument that hearsay evidence at the hearing undermines the ALJ's ultimate conclusions where the evidence was not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, but instead, to show the effect of the assertions on the decision maker; and the ALJ's determination that petitioner's protected acts were not a contributing factor in his termination was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and affirmed the final decision and order. View "Mercier v. U.S. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Medtronic, Inc., against current and former directors and officers of Medtronic, and against Medtronic as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff's complaint alleged various bad acts and false and misleading statements stemming from Medtronic's alleged improper promotion to physicians of the "off-label" use of its "Infuse" product. The district court dismissed the action based on a report by a special litigation committee (SLC). The court concluded that defendants' motion to terminate the litigation based on the SLC report could not be construed as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) nor one arising under Rule 56; the court agreed with the district court and the Eleventh Circuit that the closest fit for a motion to terminate in the Federal Rules was Rule 23.1(c); the proper standard of review was for an abuse of the district court's discretion; the district court did not err in deferring to the SLC under Minnesota's business judgment rule (BJR) where the SLC possessed a disinterested independence, and the SLC's investigative methodologies and procedures were adequate, appropriate, and pursued in good faith; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion for discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kokocinski v. Collins, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his ten year sentence for illegally reentering the United States. In 2015, defendant and his codefendant tried to hold up a bakery. Defendant carried a butcher knife to rob the bakery and accidentally ran into a door, stabbing himself in the stomach. Defendant admitted the reentry and robbery were violations of the terms of his supervised release for a 2013 illegal reentry conviction. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider the factors that supported a shorter sentence where the district court, in explaining the sentence and upward variance, repeatedly expressed its concern for defendant's recidivism. The court also concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Hernandez-Pineda" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African American female, filed suit against DHS, alleging disparate treatment on account of race, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 and 2000e-3(a). The district court dismissed the claims. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred in dismissing her claim for disparate treatment "on account of her race, when she was disciplined for something that a Caucasian female employee did not accomplish." The court concluded that plaintiff's claim of discipline did not allege that the Caucasian employee was not disciplined or received less discipline. The court explained that without an allegation of disparate treatment, this claim failed. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in dismissing the retaliation claim where plaintiff alleged but-for causation. The court explained that plaintiff's claim permitted the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Wilson v. Arkansas DHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others filed suit alleging federal and state law claims arising from a nuisance abatement carried out on his land. The district court dismissed the claims based on the doctrine of claim preclusion. The court held that plaintiff's federal action challenging the nuisance abatement was precluded by the summary judgment granted in the Ramsey County District Court and affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In this case, the actions involved the same set of factual circumstances, same parties or privies, there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation, and plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this matter in the prior action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Anderson v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's amendment to defendant's term of supervised release to require that he submit his person and property to a search upon reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the district court did not commit plain error in imposing the search condition where it was not clear or obvious under current law that the search condition was not reasonably related to defendant's offenses and criminal history, involved a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, or was inconsistent with any pertinent policy statements. The court also concluded that the district court did not violate defendant's due process rights or the Ex Post Facto Clause in imposing the non-punitive condition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Winston" on Justia Law