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

Ramon Mendoza, a naturalized United States citizen, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for ICE agent Justin Osterberg, the County, the County employees, and Sheriff Davis on numerous claims based on an improper immigration detainer that was issued and later withdrawn. The detainer was withdrawn once Osterberg confirmed that Mendoza was not in fact Ramon Mendoza-Gutierrez, an aggravated felon. The court concluded that Osterberg had arguable probable cause to issue the ICE detainer and was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics claim; the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no direct participation in the alleged violations; there was no violation of Mendoza's constitutional rights and the County employees are entitled to qualified immunity; the district court properly granted summary judgment for Sheriff Davis and the County on plaintiff's claims of supervisory and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 where employees received instructive memorandum and on-the-job training; the actions in this case cannot reasonably be attributed to a defective governmental policy or custom; even if there were no policies or training on how to handle ICE detainers, there was no constitutional violation; there was no Fifth Amendment due process violation; and there was no evidence of defendants' conspiracy in violation of section 1984(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mendoza v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of production of child pornography and was sentenced to 354 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2251 based on his prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree. The court concluded that the information used to establish probable cause was not stale where the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took the photos of the victim, was not based on stale information; even if the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, the Leon good-faith exception prevents suppression of the seized evidence; and the Government met its burden to show any error by the district court in applying the sentencing enhancement was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Debtor challenges the district court's affirmance of the dismissal of its small business Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The court explained that the bankruptcy court's feasibility concerns would have existed even had debtor succeeded on its impairment-of-collateral argument. Even giving debtor the benefit of the impairment-of-collateral issue, the court found a sufficient basis in the record to defer to the bankruptcy court's "broad discretion" in determining whether a Chapter 11 case should be dismissed. In this case, the bankruptcy court noted primarily the issue of feasibility, that debtor's case had been pending for three years, and its failure to present a confirmable plan imposed substantial and continuing losses on its creditors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Diwan, LLC v. Maha-Vishnu Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his corporate entity, Marken, Inc., filed suit alleging that FedEx breached contractual duties, engaged in fraud, and violated North Dakota's Franchise Investment Law, N.D.C.C. 51-19-02(5)(a), and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, N.D.C.C. 12.1-06.1-05. The district court dismissed the amended complaint. Determining that Pennsylvania law governs the construction of the Standard Operating Agreement (SOA) at issue, the court concluded that dismissal as to the first breach-of-contract claim was proper because the SOA had expired and the Independent Service Provider (ISP) Agreement governed the relationship between the parties. Furthermore, the plain text of the SOA foreclosed the claim. The court also concluded that plaintiff's second breach-of-contract claim was properly dismissed and rejected plaintiff's reading of the Background Statement of the SOA because plaintiff's reading ignores context and would lead to an absurd result. The court also concluded that plaintiff's fraud claims were properly dismissed because he failed to plead fraud with the specificity required by Rule 9(b); the district court properly dismissed the Franchise Investment Law claim because the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege that plaintiff was granted the right to offer or distribute services to customers; and plaintiff's state RICO claim was also properly dismissed because he failed to sufficiently plead facts for his fraud claims and Franchise Investment Law claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Neubauer v. FedEx" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her infant son, natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of the BIA's order dismissing their appeal of the IJ's decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish that she was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground. In this case, petitioner identified her proposed particular social group as Honduran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave their relationships. Petitioner testified, however, that she was able to leave her abusive relationship and reside in Honduras safely for approximately five years. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to establish that she would be tortured if she were to return to Honduras and that the Honduran government was aware of the abuse, much less consented to the conduct. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Fuentes-Erazo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights by defendants. Plaintiff also sought certification of a class action suit against the United States Attorney General on behalf of African-Americans in Arkansas subjected to equal protection and due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the AG Defendants violated his due process rights when they accessed his sealed trial records. The district court concluded, however, that none of the actions taken by the AG Defendants amount to a brutal abuse of power. In this case, the AG Defendants acted reasonably, particularly in light of Arkansas caselaw allowing the use of expunged records to impeach testimony when the actual innocence of the witness has not been shown. Because the AG Defendants' conduct failed to shock the conscience, no substantive due process violation occurred. Furthermore, because plaintiff had no state-created liberty interest created by the Arkansas expungement statute for the AG Defendants to violate, the AG Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim. The court rejected plaintiff's defamation claim against Attorney General McDaniel because he is entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Finally, plaintiff's Brady v. Maryland claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buckley v. Ray" on Justia Law

Defendant was ordered to pay restitution of almost $500,000 after he pled guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court concluded that, although the district court missed the 90-day deadline, the district court retained its power to order restitution; the government failed to provide sufficient evidence of the ultimate losses defendant caused the victim banks; and since more than four years have passed after defendant was originally sentenced, and in the interest of finality, the court declined to remand for a third restitution proceeding. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution amount. View "United States v. Adejumo" on Justia Law

This class action against Wells Fargo involved claims related to the bank's practice of automatically ordering and charging fees for property inspections when customers fell behind on their mortgage payments. On appeal, objectors challenged the district court's award of attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the total settlement fund in the class action settlement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by basing its fee award on the total settlement fund, which included administrative costs. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the total amount of attorneys' fees and the amount was reasonable because the district court did not err in concluding that the circumstances of this case justified a large award; under the percentage-of-the-benefit method, the award was in line with other awards in the Eighth Circuit; and the district court verified the reasonableness of its award by cross-checking it against the lodestar method. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Huyer v. Buckley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 120 month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon and unlawful user in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The government conceded that defendant's Iowa third-degree burglary conviction is not a crime of violence. However, the court concluded that the district court's imposition of the USSG 2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement was harmless error because the district court stated it would impose the same sentence regardless of the guidelines calculation. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement where, based on the plain language of section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), it applies when the serial number on the frame of a firearm is obliterated even if other serial numbers on the firearm, like the one left intact on the slide and the barrel of this weapon, are unaltered; the district court did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) in light of United States v. Walker; and defendant failed to show any alleged procedural error affected his substantial rights or but for the error he would have received a more favorable sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Thigpen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 300 month sentence after pleading guilty to production of child pornography, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The court explained that grouping of the counts was irrelevant as a practical matter and harmless error. The court concluded that defendant's total offense level and Guidelines range were correctly calculated where the district court applied a five-level enhancement under USSG 4B1.5(b)(1) for a repeat and dangerous sex offender, a four-level enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4) for material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct, and a three-level offense under USSG 3D1.4 because defendant stipulated to the conduct that gave rise to the dismissed production and attempted production counts. The court also concluded that the district court's brief explanation of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors was adequate, and the sentence imposed was not unreasonably high. Because defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bevins" on Justia Law