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

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging that Officer Buchanan violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by entering his home unlawfully and by using excessive force against him during an arrest. Plaintiff also alleged that the City was liable for maintaining an unconstitutional policy governing its officers. The district court concluded that Buchanan was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims, plaintiff failed to present any evidence supporting his claim against the City, and the state law claims had no merit. The court concluded that the scenario confronting Buchanan was close enough to the line of a valid entry that he is entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, when the officer arrived at the residence, plaintiff had been drinking, he was upset and knocked over a chair as he rose to approach Buchanan, and Buchanan heard yelling from both an adult and children. Under these circumstances, a reasonable officer in Buchanan’s position could have concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a person in the residence was in need of immediate aid. Therefore, the entry did not violate plaintiff's rights. The court also concluded that Buchanan is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim where it was not clearly established at the time that an officer violated the rights of an arrestee by applying force that caused only de minimis injury. Finally, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that the City maintained an unconstitutional policy where he failed to present evidence that the City’s policy directed Buchanan to act unconstitutionally or otherwise caused a deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, including the dismissal of the state law claims. View "Shultz v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Mexico, seeks review of DHS's orders reinstating a removal order and denying petitioner's motion to reopen the reinstatement order. The court found that substantial evidence supports DHS's decision to reinstate petitioner's prior removal order. In this case, petitioner was presented with the Form I-871 stating that he was an alien subject to removal, but he still did not claim compliance or submit any evidence of compliance during the reinstatement proceeding. Instead, he chose not to make a statement. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to establish the prejudice required to establish a due process violation with regard to the reinstatement proceedings, and the court rejected petitioner's argument that DHS’s procedure in deciding to reinstate a removal order rather than issue a notice to appear to petitioner was arbitrary and capricious. Finally, the court concluded that DHS did not erroneously deny petitioner's motion to reopen the reinstatement where he failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing that he complied with his grant of voluntary departure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Perez-Garcia v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the jail nurse, jail administrator, and the City, after he was arrested during an altercation with his nephew and had sustained an injury to his hand. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the jail nurse on plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim where the nurse treated plaintiff's hand, mere negligence on the part of the nurse does not support a claim of deliberate indifference, and where plaintiff's attorney conceded that no medical evidence existed in the record to support the claim that the five-day delay in medical care caused plaintiff to suffer a detrimental effect. The court also concluded that the district court properly entered judgment for the administrator where, even if plaintiff could show that the administrator knew of his injury due to her job as jail administrator and that it was her responsibility to schedule appointments with a doctor for those on the list, the summary judgment record is devoid of any verifying medical evidence that the delay in treatment caused plaintiff to suffer a detrimental effect to his hand. Finally, the district court properly entered judgment on the pleadings against the municipal defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Corwin v. City of Independence, MO" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence and conviction for multiple offenses related to immigration fraud and government-benefits fraud. The court concluded that, assuming Kungys v. United States applies to criminal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 1425(a), the district court's instruction fairly and adequately submitted the “materiality” issue to the jury; the court found equally unavailing defendant’s argument that the district court’s instructions did not adequately explain the “procured by” requirement outlined in Kungys; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the attempted naturalization-fraud counts, false use of a social security number and aggravated identity theft counts, fraudulent receipt of health care benefits count, and four counts of mail fraud. The court held, however, that the district court erred when it found that the April 13 mailing supported a mail-fraud conviction. However, because the sentence for this conviction ran fully concurrently with defendant’s 63-month sentence on multiple properly obtained counts of conviction - including seven other mail fraud counts - the court did not disturb the prison sentence. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the remaining counts; defendant's sentence was reasonable; and the district court did not err by enhancing her sentence under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) because her offense involved at least 10 victims. View "United States v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

After plaintiff suffered a serious knee injury while deployed by the Army in Iraq combat, he underwent surgery and the VA awarded him benefits for service-connected disability. Plaintiff then applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), back pain, right knee pain, and facial twitching. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the denial of disability benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence on the administrative record supports the ALJ's conclusion that defendant retained the residual functioning capacity (RFC) to perform certain sedentary work during the relevant period at issue; the ALJ could reasonably conclude that plaintiff's repeated failure to attend a prescribed course of treatment was evidence that his mental impairment was less disabling than defendant claimed; and the ALJ explicitly acknowledged the VA’s disability finding, and correctly noted that the disability finding of another agency like the VA was not binding on the Social Security Administration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hensley v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant, a taxidermist, pled guilty to one count of Lacey Act Trafficking in violation of 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1) and 3373(d)(1)(B), and was sentenced to 27 months in prison. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in the purchase and sale of a pair of black rhinoceros horns. The court concluded that the record supports the district court’s statement that defendant's actions contributed to establishing and furthering a market for black rhinoceros horns. In this case, defendant used false identification to purchase a pair of black rhinoceros horns and shipped the horns across the country, knowing they would be resold. The court concluded that defendant's bottom of the advisory Guidelines range sentence is reasonable and the district court thoroughly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including defendant’s criminal history and the effect the sentence would have on defendant’s relationship with his son. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hess" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to being a felon and unlawful drug user in possession of ammunition. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the ammunition recovered from his residence. The court concluded that the officer's entry onto the curtilage of defendant's residence was permissible under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement. In this case, the officer was told that defendant had assaulted someone and was in the process of assaulting another in the basement of defendant's residence. View "United States v. Conerd" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for four counts of sexual abuse of a minor and one count of assault to his girlfriend resulting in serious bodily injury, all occurring in Indian country. Defendant's girlfriend died from her injuries twenty-one months after the assault. The minor is a relative of the girlfriend who was living with the couple. The court concluded that the minor's testimony was sufficient to support the sexual abuse convictions; the district court erred in admitting the hearsay statement of the girlfriend's former husband where the girlfriend had stated that defendant was the person who committed the assault, but the erroneous evidentiary ruling did not affect defendant’s substantial rights where the record as a whole, excluding the testimony, was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for the assault; the evidence amply supported the verdict; and, in regard to defendant's sentence of 293 months in prison, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying an upward departure under USSG 4A1.3 for inadequacy of criminal history category, and USSG 5K2.1 for conduct resulting in death. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stoney End of Horn" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm as a felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, alleging that the search of his vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights by questioning him without first obtaining a Miranda waiver. The court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that justified extending the traffic stop and that the roughly twenty-minute wait for the canine did not convert the otherwise lawful stop into an unreasonable detention. The court rejected defendant's argument that law enforcement officers were required to cease questioning him when he refused to sign a waiver form. In this case, defendant did not refuse to answer questions or tell the officers that he did not want to speak with them at any point during either interview. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to five counts of distributing pure methamphetamine and one count of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a playground or school. Petitioner filed a motion to vacate or correct his 120-month sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had not challenged the government's calculation of the pure methamphetamine he had sold. In this case, petitioner pled guilty to distributing mixtures which in total contained 87.5 grams of pure methamphetamine. Petitioner shows no authority supporting his argument that the 10-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) does not apply to him, or that his counsel was deficient in failing to dispute the government's calculation of pure methamphetamine he distributed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Herrera v. United States" on Justia Law