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

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, methamphetamine. The court concluded that allowing an agent to testify regarding defendant's text messages did not violate the best evidence rule because the texts were admitted into evidence; the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant entered into a conspiracy; the district court did not err in not instructing the jury first on a buyer-seller relationship; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding on the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to the conspiracy on which defendant was convicted; and the district court did not make any drug quantity findings that increased defendant's sentence above the statutory mandatory minimum sentence required by the jury’s finding in the special interrogatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Trotter" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where she knowingly joined a far-flung conspiracy when she allowed a distributor to store multiple pounds of methamphetamine and the proceeds of drug sales at defendant's Nebraska residence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against BNSF for the deaths of two BNSF employees. Plaintiffs' suit arises under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq. The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and the district court subsequently denied BNSF's motion to alter or amend the judgment based on an agreement that plaintiffs had entered with BNSF prior to trial. BNSF moved the district court to enter judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) based on plaintiffs' failure to offer any evidence that BNSF should have or could have foreseen the conduct that caused the harm, and plaintiffs' failure to offer any expert testimony to establish the standard of care applicable to BNSF for crew calls and train movements. The court concluded that it has no basis to review BNSF's foreseeability argument because it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and was not renewed in a Rule 50(b) motion; BNSF was required to, but did not, renew in a Rule 50(b) motion its contention that lay testimony was insufficient to establish a standard of care and that expert testimony was required; the court rejected BNSF's claims of evidentiary errors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying BNSF's motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) where the district court found that the agreement that was the basis for BNSF's claimed setoff was collateral to the merits of plaintiffs' FELA action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Burckhard v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Russia, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner, who was born in Georgia in 1964 and is of Greek and Russian descent, asserted he was afraid to return to Russia because he feared he would be subject to persecution by “skinhead-fascists” based on his non-Russian appearance. The IJ noted several discrepancies between petitioner's application for asylum, his interview with the asylum officer, and his later testimony. The court concluded that the IJ identified, and the Board adopted, specific, cogent reasons for petitioner's adverse credibility finding that were supported by substantial evidence. Because petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT were based upon the same discredited testimony, his other claims for relief also fail. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Chakhov v. Lynch" on Justia Law

After charges against plaintiff for disorderly conduct and interference with lawful process were dropped, plaintiff filed suit alleging various claims against government officials. The court affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim because the law regarding warrantless misdemeanor arrests for offenses committed outside the presence of the arresting officer is not clearly established under the Fourth Amendment; plaintiff failed to show a violation of any clearly established First and Fourth Amendment right; in regard to claims of unlawful arrest under Minnesota law, the court did not believe that the officers had sufficiently clear knowledge of what was required of them under the circumstances and the officers did not act maliciously or willfully in violating plaintiff's rights; and, likewise, plaintiff's claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs necessarily fails. The court agreed with the district court that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's federal law claims, official immunity for plaintiff's state law claim, and that plaintiff has not made out a claim under Monell. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Petitioners, brothers and natives of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Petitioners concede that they filed their application more than a year after they arrived in the United States, but they contend that the attack on their father in 2008 constituted changed circumstances. The court concluded that this contention is not a constitutional claim and does not raise a question of law. Rather, this contention amounts to a quarrel with the BIA's discretionary factual determination and thus the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the asylum claims are time-barred. Petitioners also argue that their credible evidence of extortionate demands and violent attacks by criminal gangs against members of their family for more than twenty years established that they suffered past persecution and have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their membership in a particular social group. The court concluded, however, that substantial evidence supports a finding that petitioners' family is no different from any other Guatemalan family that has experienced gang violence and there is no evidence that petitioners' mistreatment is associated with their membership in a social group. Finally, the court denied CAT relief and concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that the Maras 18 gang in Guatemala was not acting with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was convicted of murder and the charges were subsequently dropped when another person confessed to the murder, plaintiff filed a civil damage action against five individuals and Stone County, Missouri, alleging various claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Missouri state law. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed Stone County, the County Sheriff, and the Sheriff’s criminal investigation supervisor. The court denied the motions of Stone County Prosecutor Matt Selby, lead investigator Karl Wagner, and investigator Orville Choate, who has not appealed, rejecting their claims of absolute, qualified, and official immunity. Selby and Wagner appealed. Plaintiff argues that investigators Wagner and Choate violated his right to due process as defined in Brady v. Maryland. In this case, the district court erred by failing to adopt the more precise mens rea standard adopted in the court's controlling opinion, Villasana v. Wilhoit. Therefore, the district court must apply this controlling standard when the issue again arises on remand, whether before, during, or after trial. The court also concluded that, on this record, it was error to deny Prosecutor Selby qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that Wagner and Selby violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of which a reasonable person would have had. Finally, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying Wagner and Selby qualified immunity from the Sixth Amendment damage claim because no section 1983 precedents give these defendants fair and clear warning of what the Constitution requires, and plaintiff failed to put in the summary judgment record evidence of whether defense counsel at trial moved to suppress or exclude testimony by Parker and Pollard because it was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stewart v. Wagner" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of carjacking and two counts of corruptly attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The court reversed the convictions for carjacking and one obstruction count and remanded for resentencing on the remaining obstruction count. On remand, the district court determined that defendant's advisory guidelines sentencing range was 41 to 51 months and sentenced him to 46 months in prison. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a two-level obstruction offense under USSG 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) because defendant's obstruction offense was "extensive in scope, planning, or preparation." The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Petruk" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs (the Associations) challenged the district court's ruling that they lack Article III standing to bring a "reverse" Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, 706(2)(A), claim against the EPA. Plaintiffs challenge the EPA's disclosure of certain information about concentrated animal feeding operations, contending that this disclosure is an unlawful release of their members’ personal information. The court concluded that, assuming that plaintiffs' claim would be successful on the merits, the associations have established a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to the EPA’s action and redressable by judicial relief. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing this case for lack of standing. The court also concluded that the EPA abused its discretion in deciding that the information at issue was not exempt from mandatory disclosure under Exemption 6 of FOIA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the associations’ request for injunctive relief. View "American Farm Bureau v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendants Cree, Morris, and McArthur were convicted of criminal offenses stemming from their involvement with the Native Mob, a Minnesota prison and street gang. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Cree's conviction for conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of drugs, attempted murder or assault in aid of racketeering, and various firearms offenses; the evidence was sufficient to convict Morris of attempted murder in aid of racketeering and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering; Morris waived any claim of error based on an alleged constructive amendment; the district court should have applied the modified categorical approach to ascertain which alternative formed the basis of Morris’s third-degree burglary convictions and then to decide whether the convictions were violent felonies; the court granted the government’s request to vacate McArthur’s conviction on Count 11; in light of Rosemond v. United States, the jury instructions about which McArthur complains were not plainly erroneous; and the district court did not err in denying McArthur’s motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 10. Under the sentencing package doctrine, the court vacated McArthur's sentence and remanded for further proceedings. The court also vacated Moriss's conviction. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. McArthur" on Justia Law