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

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24-months in prison following the district court's revocation of his supervised release. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally sufficient and substantively reasonable; the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering defendant to serve the federal revocation sentence consecutive to a state sentence that had not yet been imposed; Judge Harpool did not abuse his discretion in declining to recuse himself from this case where defendant failed to support his allegation of bias or prejudice by the judge; and the court declined to review defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking interest and attorney's fees after General American notified plaintiff that the treasury warrant in the amount of his annuity transfer had never cleared. General American reversed the transaction. The court found that, under the terms of plaintiff's annuity, General American promised to make periodic payments to plaintiff at agreed upon dates; plaintiff does not allege that General American failed to make payments or otherwise failed to fulfill an obligation under the terms of the annuity; nor does this action arise from a declaratory judgment action or an effort by General American to cancel or lapse the policy. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff did not suffer a “loss” covered by Ark. Code Ann. Sections 23-79-208 and 23-79-209, and the district court was correct that neither a 12% penalty nor attorney’s fees are owing by American General under these sections. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding plaintiff was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under section 16-22-308. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney’s fees in this case. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Cooper v. General American Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 262 months in prison because he was subject to the mandatory-minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court held that defendant failed to make a valid and timely objection to the fact of his prior second-degree assault convictions, and the district court did not clearly err in basing his sentence on these prior convictions listed in the PSR. The court also held that second-degree assault under Minn. Stat. 609.222 requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another and therefore qualifies as a violent felony for ACCA purposes. Thus, the district court properly counted each of defendant's three second-degree assault convictions as ACCA predicates and sentenced him accordingly. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

The Hospital challenged the Board's decision affirming an ALJ's finding that the Hospital violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5) and (1). The court agreed with the Hospital that the Board erred in holding that the one-year-long collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Union established a status quo of annual, compounded raises that, under the NLRA, must be continued after the agreement's expiration. In this case, the plain language of the CBA does not, as the Board states, provide for periodic wage increases or annual raises; rather, the language sets forth a straight forward, singular pay increase on a particular day during the one-year contract. Therefore, the new salary at the time the CBA expired, not the alleged practice of 3% annual pay raises, is the status quo that must be maintained throughout negotiations. Because the Hospital did not violate section 158(a)(5) by discontinuing annual pay raises, the Hospital also did not violate section 158(a)(1) by informing employees that it would no longer give annual pay raises after the expiration of the CBA. Accordingly, the court granted the Hospital's petition for review and set aside the portion of the Board's order regarding the Hospital's discontinuance of annual pay raises. View "The Finley Hospital v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The court agreed with the magistrate judge's determination that probable cause existed to support the GPS tracking warrant where, in considering the totality of the circumstances, the corroborated information established that the confidential reliable informant (CRI) was providing accurate information about verifiable details. The fact that those corroborated details were not about criminal activity does not subtract from the probable cause analysis. Furthermore, defendant's arguments about the geographical location of the vehicle or any possible state law violations are without merit. The court also concluded that the affidavits supporting the search warrant for the Hamline and Irving residences and the Avalanche vehicle established that there was a reasonable probability that a search of the premises and vehicle would lead to the discovery of evidence. Because the court found that there was probable cause based upon the affidavits to support issuance of the warrants, defendant's arguments about their anticipatory nature are without merit. The court further concluded that the CRI was correctly considered a "mere tipster" and disclosure of his identity was not required. Finally, the district court correctly found that the prior two drug convictions at issue were separate ACCA predicates. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Faulkner" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of minors. The court concluded that defendant affirmatively waived his right to challenge whether the district court erred by permitting the jury to listen to the recorded interview with the victim. Waiver aside, the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less commit plain error, by allowing the jury to listen to the audio-recorded interview where the recording was properly admitted into evidence and defendant waived any foundational objections and defendant specifically stated that he had no objection to the admission of the recording. Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse for assaulting his girlfriend, as well as related charges. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, under FRE 409 and 413, of a prior sexual assault defendant committed against his former wife; there was no unfair prejudice other than the issue of spillover, which the district court's decision to sever resolved; and the district court further limited the alleged danger of the prior assault evidence by giving the jury a limiting instruction. The court concluded that defendant's expert witness's accident reconstruction testimony was properly excluded where it was not helpful as required by Rule 702; FRE 403 weighs against including the expert testimony in this case where evidence about how the girlfriend ended up in front of the car has minimal probative value; and defendant's attorney properly cross-examined the girlfriend. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level enhancement for abduction under USSG 2A3.1(b)(5), and a two-level enhancement for physical restraint under USSG 3A1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Strong, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of several charges related to his use of counterfeit credit cards. The court concluded that, even assuming arguendo that the district court erred by permitting a special agent's testimony regarding whether certain conduct constituted the crime of identity theft, defendant failed to show that the error affected his substantial rights. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the Government to impeach his testimony with the credit and debit cards found in his wallet and with the rebuttal testimony of the special agent where the Government introduced the cards only to impeach defendant's claims that he did not have criminal intent and that he did not understand the difference between gift cards and credit cards. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rojas" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of bank robbery and sentenced to 240 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting testimony that he had discarded a firearm several weeks before the credit union robbery where evidence of this prior bad act is relevant and any potentially prejudicial effect of the challenged testimony did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the district court properly instructed the jury to disregard the "shots fired" testimony; the district court did not err in admitting alleged hearsay testimony of several witnesses describing statements made by codefendant, who did not testify at trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of codefendant's teenage daughter who stated that she was present when defendant and codefendant discussed robbing a bank and that she was present in the motel room after the robbery; the court rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary arguments; and, in light of the district court's unequivocal statement that it would impose a 240-month sentence notwithstanding its application of the career offender provision, any error in applying the career offender provision is harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, formerly employed at UICSM as a physician assistant, filed suit alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601. The district court granted summary judgment to UICSM. The court noted that 29 C.F.R. 825.311(a) inarguably permitted UICMS to contact plaintiff to inquire about her "status and intent to return to work." The court concluded that UICMS was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's interference claim where plaintiff has not presented evidence that UICMS's requests for her to work from home when she had a broken foot were a condition of her employment nor that her compliance with them was anything but voluntary. The evidence does not permit a reasonable jury to find that UICMS interfered with plaintiff's right to FMLA leave. In regard to plaintiff's discrimination claim, the court concluded that the sequence of events alone does not give rise to a causal link between UICMS's alleged discriminatory motive and its decision not to renew plaintiff's contract strong enough to permit her to forgo the burden-shifting framework; applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court concluded that UICMS has proffered plaintiff's tardy charting as a nondiscriminatory justification for deciding not to renew her contract; and plaintiff has not created a dispute as to pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Massey-Diez v. UICMS" on Justia Law