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

After defendant purchased an automobile insurance policy from Nationwide, he wrecked his car and Nationwide rescinded the policy. Nationwide then sought declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify or defend defendant under the policy’s coverage because defendant made material misrepresentations in his online insurance application. The district court granted summary judgment to Nationwide. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that defendant materially misrepresented his primary use of the vehicle as "work" instead of "business." In this case, defendant used the vehicle to make business-related deliveries, putting over 1,200 miles a week on the vehicle for such deliveries. Because the district court correctly determined that defendant failed to raise a fact issue about how the application screen appeared, the court presumes that the online application contained the parentheticals at issue, which are not ambiguous as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Faircloth, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and sentenced to 420 months in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. The court affirmed the judgment. In this case, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant transported a minor in interstate commerce with the requisite intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons. View "United States v. Duffin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and use of a communication facility to further a controlled substance conspiracy. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress incriminating telephone recordings and rejected defendant's argument under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. The court concluded that the two government informants were acting under color of law when recording their conversations with defendant where the informants were acting at the direction of law enforcement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury about the punishment defendant faced if convicted because the district court is not required to instruct a jury about the sentencing consequences of its verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant played a managerial or supervisory role in the methamphetamine operation and imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lora-Andres" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 110 months in prison. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where a reasonable jury could find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by permitting the government to introduce into evidence defendant's prior felony drug convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the prior convictions were relevant, were not too remote, and did not unfairly prejudice defendant. Furthermore, the district court gave a limiting instruction which likely reduced any possible prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tou Fang" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 188 months in prison. The court concluded that the traffic stop was not pretextual where the deputy's observation of the traffic violation based on his use of the radar gave him probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle, and his subjective intent to detain the vehicle for a dog-sniff search is irrelevant; another deputy arrived on the scene within two minutes and completed the tasks related to the traffic stop, writing defendant a warning after the dog sniff was complete and the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics; and there is no evidence that the dog sniff unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop beyond what was necessary to complete the stop. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's prior state and federal offenses qualified as prior convictions under USSG 4A1.2(a)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Fuehrer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing a young child in and around New Town, North Dakota. On appeal, defendant argues that he should not have been tried and convicted in federal court because New Town is not “Indian country.” The court concluded that defendant was properly subject to federal prosecution because New Town is part of the Fort Berthold Reservation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Chad Everett Bear, Sr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and state law negligence, against Harbor Freight after a Harbor Freight manager accused plaintiff of stealing from the store earlier in the day. The district court dismissed the section 1981 claim for failure to plead a state action, and declined supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claim. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing the section 1981 claim because the court was bound by Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc.'s state action requirement and defendant did not plead state action in the complaint. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defendant's state law claims once the district court dismissed the claim over which it had original jurisdiction. View "Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to a drug trafficking charge, and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during and after a search of his vehicle. The court concluded that defendant lacks standing to challenge the entry into the parking lot of the apartment complex because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area. Therefore, the court need not address whether the officers' entry into the parking lot was lawful. The court explained that the uniformed officer’s act of shining a spotlight on defendant's car was not a seizure, and defendant does not claim that the officer effected a seizure by blocking defendant's SUV with the squad car. Once the uniformed officer detected an odor of marijuana coming from defendant's person, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant and, a fortiori, reasonable suspicion to detain him for further investigation. In any event, the police had ample reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative stop of defendant in the parking lot. In this case, the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of a marijuana cigar in plain view through the window were sufficient to justify a search for drugs. Finally, the court concluded that it is permissible to search an arrestee's person - here, defendant's pockets to obtain a key to the SUV - incident to an arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Medtronic for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to Medtronic. The court agreed with the district court that there does not exist a strong enough causal connection sufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA and MHRA. The court also concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim fails because there is no evidence of a retaliatory motive on Medtronic's part to support a showing of causation even under a mixed-motive standard. In this case, Medtronic had cause to terminate plaintiff due to her performance issues. Plaintiff presented no evidence that any purported statements she made motivated Medtronic's decision to terminate her, and her rejection of Medtronic's proposed settlement agreement is not an activity protected under the ADA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for distribution of methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a drug user. Defendant argues that changing the address on the search warrant violated Rule 41 and Rule 4.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and further invalidated the search warrant. The court concluded that the phone conversation between an FBI agent and the magistrate judge was not recorded and thus violated Rule 4.1. However, as the district court correctly held, suppressing the evidence was not the correct remedy. In this case, the violation was not one of constitutional magnitude, defendant was not prejudiced by the violation, and there is no evidence of an intentional and deliberate or reckless disregard for the rule. The court also concluded that the affidavit established a clear nexus between drug dealing and defendant's residence, such that the mere address change had no effect on the validity of the warrant. The description was sufficient, and the district court properly determined that probable cause existed to search the property located at the address. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of witness intimidation where the testimony was used to show defendant was guilty of the charged crime, and was not excessively emotional or inflammatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Skarda" on Justia Law