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

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (count one) and possession of an illegal firearm (count two) after law enforcement officers seized three firearms and 374 rounds of ammunition from a shed owned by his father. On appeal, defendant argued that the Fourth Amendment required the officers to obtain a warrant before entering and searching the shed where the evidence was seized. The court concluded that, having heard uncontradicted testimony from three credible officers that defendant both authorized and facilitated the search of the shed, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wolff" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder (Count I) and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Count II). On appeal, defendant seeks dismissal of Count II. The court concluded that defendant's challenge under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B), Count II, is the very type of statute that the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States explained would not be unconstitutionally vague under its holding. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Count II and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Prickett" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of two firearms and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress the firearms during the two searches. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in the first search where defendant cites no case - and the court has found none - ruling that a threat to search and a reach transformed a Terry stop into an arrest. In this case, the officers’ threat to perform a protective search, when they had reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous, coupled with a reach, did not transform the lawful Terry stop into a full-blown arrest. In regard to the second search, the court concluded that the district court did not err when it ruled that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendants and to conduct a search incident to arrest that uncovered the firearm. The arresting officers knew that defendant had prior actual oral notice that he could not lawfully enter or remain on the LU campus. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Blake Roussel and LuAnne Deere formed Clear Sky, LLC d/b/a Exit First Choice Realty - an Exit Realty brokerage franchise - in Conway, Arkansas. Deere and Clear Sky subsequently filed suit against Roussel for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and violations of Arkansas law. A jury found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded plaintiffs money judgments. Roussel then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and Clear Sky and Deere filed an adversary proceeding against Roussel, requesting that the bankruptcy court declare the entire state court judgment nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6). The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the Judgment Debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) where the facts show that Roussel acted willfully and he knew that consequences were certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. The court also concluded that apportionment is inappropriate here because Deere’s breach-of contract-claim is deeply intertwined with the breach-of-fiduciary-duties claim by Deere and Clear Sky. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Roussel v. Clear Sky Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Barkley filed suit against Gabriel Brothers, alleging breach of a master services agreement. In the alternative, Barkley alleged that Gabriel Brothers breached a subsequent agreement to pay "actual costs" and Gabriel Brothers was unjustly enriched. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Gabriel Brothers on Barkley’s breach-of-the-agreement claim because the alleged February 21, 2013, draft 2013 statement of work was not part of a written contract and the document did not contain the agreement’s incorporation clause. The court also concluded that Barkley’s damages claim was liquidated and that the district court should have awarded prejudgment interest; assuming that the district court’s statement constituted a sua sponte summary judgment on the actual-costs contract claim, the court concluded that Gabriel Brothers was given adequate notice and that the district court therefore did not err in granting partial summary judgment in Barkley's favor on that claim; the court rejected Gabriel Brothers's evidentiary challenges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gabriel Brothers's motion for judgment as a matter of law where a reasonable jury could find from the evidence that the parties had formed a contract for Gabriel Brothers to pay Barkley's actual costs; a jury could reasonably find that Barkley was entitled to $138,223.52; and, in regard to attorney's fees, the court agreed with the district court that neither party was the prevailing party. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of an award of prejudgment interest. View "Barkley, Inc. v. Gabriel Brothers, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after removal following his conviction for aggravated felonies. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded, having thoroughly reviewed the record, that there is no sentencing error, plain or otherwise. In this case, the record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each of defendant's sentencing arguments, considered the supporting evidence, responded appropriately, and gave a reasoned basis for defendant's below-Guidelines sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion by refusing to impose an even shorter sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres-Ojeda" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found that the IJ did not clearly err in its findings of fact and provided cogent reasons for the IJ’s credibility determination. Even in light of petitioner's plausible explanations, based on the specific, cogent reasons identified by the IJ, the court concluded that a reasonable adjudicator could reach the same credibility determination as the IJ and BIA. Because petitioner provided the same evidence to support all three claims, and the evidence was insufficient to meet even the burden of proof required for asylum, her remaining claims also fail. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Arevalo-Cortez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of tax evasion and sentenced to 51 months in prison, as well as three years of supervised release. Defendant contends that he was entitled to present provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other material to the jury for the purpose of supporting a mistaken-belief defense. The court affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings, concluding that the right to present a complete defense does not entitle a defendant to present the jury with evidence that is either irrelevant or is properly excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court concluded that Special Condition 13, which requires that defendant refrain from creating or establishing any new websites and that he remove any of his currently existing websites, and Special Condition 14, which bans defendant from using or possessing computing devices without prior written approval from a probation officer and requires him to consent to searches of any computer he is permitted to possess, are both overly broad. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings but vacated the challenged special conditions of supervised release and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. West" on Justia Law

Defendants Valencia and Rangel-Ortega appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to several drug-related offenses. The district court sentenced Valencia to 292 months’ imprisonment and Rangel-Ortega to 240 months’ imprisonment. The court concluded that Rangel-Ortega's appeal falls within the scope of his appeal waiver, the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily; and the enforcement of the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court turned to the merits of Valencia's appeal based on a misstatement given by the magistrate judge. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Valencia acted as a manager or supervisor for the drug-distribution ring and the court upheld the district court's decision to apply the three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed Valencia's sentence and dismissed Rangel-Ortega's appeal. View "United States v. Valencia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted as a principle for arson of a building used in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i) ("Count I"); mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 ("Count II"); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 ("Counts III–V"); and arson in connection with a federal felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(h) ("Count VI"). The district court sentenced defendant to five terms of imprisonment of 70 months on Counts I–V, to run concurrently, and one term of imprisonment of 120 months on Count VI, to run consecutive to the 70-month terms. Defendant appealed. The court declined to review defendant's Double Jeopardy Clause claim because he failed to show good cause for his untimely motion; any error in admitting the photographs at issue is harmless where the photographs had little or no influence on the verdict and thus did not affect defendant's substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial where there was no reversible error as to defendant's alleged jury-instruction error; and there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Schropp" on Justia Law