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

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant because he was sleeping in an unmarked van filled with copper pipes that was parked in a location known to be used in processing stolen scrap metal. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the totality of the circumstances provided the officers with reasonable suspicion that the copper pipes in defendant's possession were stolen. The subsequent brief detention, questioning, and eventual arrest pursuant to outstanding warrants were therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Midwest, alleging that an insurance agent carelessly and negligently failed to designate plaintiffs as owners of the insurance policy at issue. The district court concluded that the complaint failed to state a viable claim and dismissed the case. The court concluded that, under the policy, control over the policy during the lifetime of the insured - including the power to name a new owner - belonged solely to the insured in this case. Therefore, Midwest cannot be liable for negligence for failing to do something it had no power to do. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carlson v. Midwest Prof'l Planners" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he had not sustained a qualifying prior conviction. The court concluded, based on the relevant judicial records under the required analytical approach, that defendant's prior conviction does not meet the definition of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” In this case, the judicial record does not establish that defendant necessarily was convicted of an assault that has the required element under section 922(g)(9). Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "United States v. Horse Looking" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Midland under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, alleging that Midland violated the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court declined to extend the FDCPA to time-barred proofs of claim, concluding that an accurate and complete proof of claim on a time-barred debt is not false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable under the FDCPA. The court explained that the bankruptcy code provides for a claims resolution process and these protections against harassment and deception satisfy the relevant concerns of the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 120 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that United States v. Alleyne does not apply to safety-valve determinations provided in 18 U.S.C. 3553(f); the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant possessed the firearms and ammunition in connection with the drug offense; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by denying a sentence reduction under USSG 3B1.2 where a reduction under this section would not have actually resulted in a lower sentence because defendant was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Leanos" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for several drug-trafficking and firearm-related charges. The court concluded that the application and affidavit used to secure the wiretap satisfied the necessity requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(c); the search warrant application alleged a nexus between the place to be searched and money laundering operation; and therefore the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence derived from the search of the property. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the co-conspirator's testimony; the conspiracy counts were not misjoined with the firearm-related counts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a); the district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever; and there was substantial evidence that defendant was not acting in self defense when he fired on the SWAT team and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for acquittal for his conviction for assaulting a federal officer. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a leadership role enhancement pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(a); no error in calculating the drug quantities involved; the sentence was substantively reasonable; and the life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Colbert" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former police officer, appealed his conviction for willfully depriving Orville Hill of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer. The court concluded that defendant's prior use of unreasonable force was relevant to prove that defendant acted willfully when he deprived Hill of his right to be free from unreasonable force; the circumstances of the prior act and of the charged crime were sufficiently similar to support an inference of criminal intent; and the prior incident was not so remote in time as to make it inadmissible. Furthermore, the government presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant used unreasonable force in the prior incident; the probative value of the prior incident substantially outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice where the district court gave a limiting instruction regarding the prior incident; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video of the prior incident where any error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boone" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings to apply for asylum. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings to seek asylum based on fear of harm in Nigeria because of allegedly new, widespread violence from the terrorist group Boko Haram. The court held that petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely due to her inability to show a material change in country conditions in Nigeria, which would have excused her from the 90-day time limitation for filing the motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's judgment and denied the petition for review. View "Zeah v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, convicted of murdering her three-year-old daughter, filed suit against current and former members of the Parole Board, alleging that the inclusion of photographs of her murdered daughter in her file deprived her of her right to have her request for parole heard by an unbiased and impartial board, which violated her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted the Board's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that plaintiff's due process claim fails because she does not have a protected federal due process right to parole. Nor does South Dakota's discretionary parole process that is applicable here create a liberty interest in parole by statute. Furthermore, despite the fact that plaintiff has a statutory right to a parole hearing, that right is not a protected liberty interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jenner v. Nikolas" on Justia Law

Attorney James Robinson, Attorney Elbert Walton, and Critique Services, LLC appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's judgment on debtor's motion to disgorge attorney's fees. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that, assuming that debtor's claim was property of her Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, the Trustee abandoned the property. The court also concluded that Appellant's motion to recuse was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a); even if the motions to recuse were timely, Appellants have not demonstrated that Judge Rendlen’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned; the bankruptcy court did not err in docketing debtor's pro se complaint as a motion to disgorge attorney's fees; Critique Services had been properly served and discovery requests were properly directed to it; debtor's claim is not moot; because settlement in this case was never completed, the bankruptcy court retained authority to order debtor to accept discovery and to sanction Appellants for failing to comply with the court’s orders; and Appellants were not entitled to benefit from the doctrine of unclean hands. Finally, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing significant sanctions on Appellants, including civil penalties and suspension. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Critique Services, LLC v. Steward" on Justia Law