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

Petitioner, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the district court's denial of his request for post-conviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner had moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err by ruling that counsel's cross-examination strategies, closing argument, and challenges to the drug quantities was not constitutionally deficient. The court also concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion by the district court to forgo holding an evidentiary hearing before dismissing the section 2255 motion. Because petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed the dismissal of the section 2255 motion. View "Guzman-Ortiz v. United States" on Justia Law

Leigh Murphy d/b/a Murphy Cattle Co. appealed the bankruptcy court's orders holding that Sweetwater's lien in certain cattle was superior to Murphy's rights as an unpaid seller of the cattle. The panel concluded that the result in this case would be the same under either Colorado or Nebraska law and thus relied on cases from both states interpreting the relevant provisions of the UCC; Murphy signed a document transferring ownership of the cattle to Debtor Leonard, such that others could reasonably rely on Leonard's claim of ownership; Moffat County State Bank v. Producers Livestock Marketing Assoc. does not stand for the proposition that Article 2 is inapplicable here as to the passage of title, and the bankruptcy court did not err in turning to Article 2 of the UCC; pursuant to section 2-401, title passed to Leonard at the moment the cattle were shipped; Murphy's right to have title re-vest in him when the checks were dishonored was limited to his reclamation rights; under section 2-403, when Leonard received title from Murphy at the time of shipping, he received all the title Murphy had, as well as the power to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value (Sweetwater in this case); the panel denied Sweetwater's request to strike Murphy's electronic record filing; and the panel denied Sweetwater's oral request for sanctions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sweetwater Cattle Co. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking a minor and was sentenced to 293 months in prison. In this case, the court found that officers had a good faith belief that exigent circumstances justified the request that T-Mobile disclose subscriber information and conduct exigent GPS tracking of a cell phone number. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw and request for reconsideration without a hearing. The district court expressly found at the change-of-plea hearing and in denying the motion to withdraw that defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing an enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, and in denying a reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, and affirmed the sentence because it was procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. McHenry" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in Iowa state court of first degree murder. After the district court dismissed his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as untimely, the court granted a certificate of appealability on whether his petition was timely filed and, if not, whether he was entitled to equitable tolling. The court agreed with the district court that the petition was untimely filed where he filed the petition on August 22, 2014, 28 days after the Iowa Supreme Court's decision and 6 days after the one year limitations period had expired; petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request to appoint independent counsel to advise him on whether to waive any arguments based on his counsel's conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Martin v. Fayram" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and eight others filed a class action against Anheuser-Busch under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs are participants in the Anheuser-Busch salaried employee pension plan and claim that they are entitled to enhanced pension benefits. At issue is the interpretation of Section 19.11(f) of the plan. Determining that it has jurisdiction over the appeal, the court concluded that Section 19.11(f) is unambiguous and agreed with the district court's adoption of the reasoning in the Sixth Circuit's case, Adams v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., that Section 19.11(f) entitled plaintiffs to enhanced benefits. Although the court affirmed on the merits, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the decision still must be reversed and remanded because the district court failed to make individual calculations of enhanced benefits owed to individual members of the class. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to reconsider plaintiffs' prayer for relief and, to the extent requested and provable, calculate and award the benefits owed to plaintiffs by applying Section 19.11(f). The court noted that, upon remand, the district court may reconsider whether certain records will assist in its calculation of the requested benefits. View "Knowlton v. Anheuser-Busch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes related to child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where law enforcement officials had probable cause to search defendant's residence because there was a fair probability that they would unearth evidence of the completed crime in defendant's possession at the time of the search; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "downthemall" exhibits because the evidence was probative of the charged crimes where it indicated that plaintiff's knowledge of the Tor network and specifically how it could be utilized to access hidden child pornography websites; likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Onion Pedo Video Archive evidence; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts that he knowingly received, accessed with intent to view, and possessed child pornography; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Huyck" on Justia Law

Defendant was civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. 4243 after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of false personation of a federal officer. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order denying him discharge from a psychiatric hospital. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the proposed conditions of discharge did not sufficiently address the substantial risk that defendant would stop taking his medications, decompensate, and cause bodily harm or property damage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mikawa" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of money laundering. On appeal, the government challenged defendant's sentence of twelve months and one day of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court concluded that defendant violated the parties' plea agreement by arguing for a sentence below the range calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the breach was material, prejudicial, and not harmless, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. View "United States v. Swisshelm" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 60 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. In this case, the district court carefully considered whether defendant had made an effort to improve his respect for the law given his criminal history, whether a sentence of imprisonment within the advisory Guidelines range would promote respect for the law, and whether a sentence of imprisonment within the advisory Guidelines range would adequately protect the public from defendant's future offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bacon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release and commitment to the Bureau of Prisons for 8 months followed by one year of supervised release. Defendant, while on a previous term of supervised release, left a voice mail soliciting his daughter to commit an assault on his behalf. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding these facts, taken together, show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. Furthermore, defendant's 8 month term of imprisonment was substantively reasonable where the district court explicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Petersen" on Justia Law