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

Plaintiffs filed suit against Bank of America, alleging that Bank of America failed to provide necessary disclosures in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. The district court agreed with defendants that the loan at issue was a residential mortgage transaction to which section 1635(a) did not apply. Therefore, the notice of rescission plaintiffs sent to Bank of America in February 2011 could not cancel the loan or provide a basis for wrongful foreclosure and quiet title actions. The district court determined that even if defendants had been required to provide disclosures under the TILA, any claim for damages would have been barred by its one-year statute of limitations. The court concluded that, based on the plain language of the statute, a residential mortgage transaction is not entitled to the right of rescission under section 1635(a). The court rejected plaintiffs' remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Dunn v. Bank of America N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to filing a false income tax return and agreed to pay restitution to eight victims. On appeal, defendant claims that the length of her prison sentence was influenced by race or national origin (both hers and the victims’), the fact she immigrated to the United States, and her anticipated inability to afford to pay restitution—or at least that someone observing her sentencing hearing could have gotten that impression. Defendant challenges the district court's reference to defendant victimizing "her fellow Laotians." The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving any weight to race or national origin in establishing its sentence for defendant, and the district court did not improperly consider her socioeconomic status. Nor did the district court otherwise signal or even imply it was increasing defendant’s prison sentence to compensate for the expectation of not recovering much in restitution. The district court appears to have mentioned the likelihood of defendant's investors not receiving their money back primarily as part of a general background description of what she did and the harm she caused. Finally, the court concluded that the comments at issue provide no reason to suspect any prohibited considerations infected the district court’s sentencing decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kouangvan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful drug user. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to present evidence that revealed and related to his gang affiliation. In this case, the government tailored its use of evidence that referenced his gang ties to merely provide context for defendant’s own words about his overlapping personal involvement with guns and gangs, and also to show he had motive to possess a real gun or ammunition; the prosecutor’s comments were fleeting and the district court issued two detailed limiting instructions; and the district court did not commit reversible error. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for being a felon in possession. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Payne-Owens" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, filed an untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In this case, petitioner failed to demonstrate that his relatives' deaths in 2010 and 2011 reflected changed country conditions and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Therefore, the court agreed with the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish changed country conditions and affirmed the judgment. View "Villatoro-Ochoa v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of aiding and abetting sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion; one count of aiding and abetting transportation with intent to engage in prostitution; and one count of being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance of the firearm possession charge from the sex trafficking charges where all three counts involved a series of events that occurred between January 6 and January 14, 2014, on a trip defendant took with the victim; the facts in this case are relatively straightforward, and defendant failed to demonstrate severe prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of defendant's girlfriend where the testimony about defendant's earlier use of force against her was relevant to the issue of his intent, the testimony was similar in kind and not overly remote in time to the crime charged, and the probative value outweighed any prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of a special agent regarding sex trafficking; and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions on Count 1 and 2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Geddes" on Justia Law

Class plaintiffs, civilly committed sex offenders, filed suit against Minnesota state defendants, bringing a facial and as applied challenge to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs claim that their substantive due process rights have been violated by Minnesota’s Civil Commitment and Treatment Act (MCTA), Minn. Stat. Ann. 253D.07(1)-(2), and by the actions and practices of the managers of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The district court found for plaintiffs and entered an expansive injunctive order. The court concluded that the actions and statements that plaintiffs claimed of do not establish judicial bias; plaintiffs have standing to challenge the MCTA, and Heck v. Humphrey and the narrow Rooker-Feldman bar do not apply to this action; the proper standard of scrutiny to be applied to plaintiffs’ facial due process challenge is whether MCTA bears a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose; the district court applied an incorrect standard in considering plaintiffs’ as-applied substantive due process claim; the extensive process and the protections to persons committed under MCTA are rationally related to the State’s legitimate interest of protecting its citizens from sexually dangerous persons or persons who have a sexual psychopathic personality, and thus the statute is facially constitutional; and plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that any of the identified actions of the state defendants or arguable shortcomings in the MSOP were egregious, malicious, or sadistic as is necessary to meet the conscience-shocking standard, and thus plaintiffs' as-applied due process violation claims fail. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the order, remanding for further proceedings. View "Karsjens v. Johnson Piper" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm after a domestic-abuse conviction, and sentenced to 77 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for domestic abuse-strangulation is a crime of violence and the district court did not err by calculating his base offense level of 20 under USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court also concluded that the district court properly applied a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Parrow" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the district court's failure to suppress defendant's statement made sua sponte outside his home was not plain error where defendant has not shown that the outcome of his trial could have been any different if his statement had been suppressed; the search warrant was supported by probable cause and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress; and the district court did not err by allowing an officer's testimony regarding the correlation between firearms and drugs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Braden, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture, 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine. Defendant was also convicted of kidnapping. The district court sentenced defendant to two concurrent terms of 600 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenges the district court's discretionary reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court found that the district court did not improperly consider or give significant weight to defendant's original within-guidelines sentence. The court explained that the original “otherwise final sentence” is a valid consideration within the district court’s discretion so long as it bears a reasonable relationship to the factors under section 3582(c)(2). The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s consideration or explanation of the other factors relevant in its decision to decrease defendant's sentence by 100 months. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robles-Garcia" on Justia Law

Appellants, retirement and investments funds, challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to Medtronic on their securities fraud class action. Appellants alleged a number of securities laws violations related to Medtronic’s INFUSE product, including making false statements and employing a scheme to defraud the market. Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), makes illegal the use of a manipulative or deceptive device in connection with the sale or purchase of a security by any instrumentality of interstate commerce. 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Scheme liability concerns the use of “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” and “any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5(a), (c). In this case, because Appellants could not have discovered with reasonable diligence sufficient information to plead scienter with the particularity necessary to survive a motion to dismiss prior to June 27, 2011, Appellants brought their complaint within the two-year statute of limitations. The court rejected Medtronic's argument that Appellants’ scheme liability claim is barred as a matter of law by Janus Capital Group, Inc., and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "West Virginia Pipe Trades v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law