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

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and was sentenced to 97 months in prison. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to defraud his employer by means of false invoices from companies created by his friends. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four level sentencing enhancement for defendant's role as an "organizer or leader" of the conspiracy pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(a). In this case, the nature of defendant's participation in the conspiracy was central and significant, he "concocted" the scheme, he exercised decision making authority, and he admitted to having a high degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Coles" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to distributing heroin within 1,000 feet of an elementary school after a prior felony drug conviction. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that the district court understood that the plea agreement was not binding and that defendant was eligible for a discretionary sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the particular circumstances of defendant's case did not warrant a reduction where the district court considered the nature and seriousness of the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the state claiming, inter alia, that the prohibitions in the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act, Minn. Stat. 216H.03, subd. 3(2) and (3), violate the Commerce Clause. The statute is intended to reduce statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions by prohibiting utilities from meeting Minnesota demand with electricity generated by a new large energy facility in a transaction that will contribute to or increase statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and a permanent injunction. The court concluded that plaintiffs meet the Article III standing requirement where Plaintiff Basin can demonstrate a probable economic injury resulting from governmental action; plaintiffs' claims are ripe for judicial review because the issues are predominately legal, and the challenged prohibitions are currently causing hardship by interfering with the ability of plaintiffs such as Basin to plan, invest in, and conduct their business operations; the district court did not err in declining to abstain under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co.; the district court correctly concluded that the challenged prohibitions have the practical effect of controlling conduct beyond the boundaries of Minnesota; the statute has extraterritorial reach and will impose Minnesota’s policy of increasing the cost of electricity by restricting use of the currently most cost-efficient sources of generating capacity from prohibited sources anywhere in the grid, absent Minnesota regulatory approval or the dismantling of the federally encouraged and approved MISO transmission system; Minnesota may not do this without the approval of Congress; and the district court did not err by enjoining the defendant state officials from enforcing the prohibitions. The court dismissed plaintiffs' cross-appeal as moot. View "North Dakota v. Heydinger" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for possession of child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's decision to admit evidence of defendant's prior acts of sexual abuse where the evidence that defendant sexually abused his younger sister when he was 17-years-old and sexually abused his 13-year-old daughter is probative of defendant's interest in underage girls, and defendant performed or possessed images depicting similar explicit acts on each victim. Moreover, for FRE 414 purposes, it does not matter that defendant’s prior sexual abuse of his sister occurred up to twenty years before the instant offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not err when it considered defendant’s prior conviction for sexual assault in applying the 18 U.S.C. 2252(b) sentencing enhancement where ACCA sentencing enhancements based on convictions for crimes committed as a juvenile do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding one victim restitution, nor did the district court clearly err in determining the amount of the loss to be $500. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Emmert, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed firearms and knew the machine gun was a machine gun and an automatic firearm. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) where the firearm at issue had an obliterated serial number, even though defendant was acquitted of possessing a firearm with a serial number removed. The enhancement applied regardless of whether defendant knew or had reason to believe that the firearm had been altered or obliterated. Finally, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 92 months in prison, a sentence within and at the bottom of the guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Grimes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a civilly-committed individual, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging a violation of his constitutional right to adequate nutrition. The district court denied defendants qualified immunity. The court concluded that the evidence, taken most favorably to plaintiff, demonstrates a violation of his constitutional right to adequate nutrition where there is ample evidence from which a jury could find that plaintiff proved a violation when he lost 11 pounds in less than two months, his bag lunches often lacked items as punishment for behavior violations, he sometimes received 1200 calories per day instead of the recommended 2000, and food was improperly withheld from him. The court concluded, however, that the evidence against Defendants Rowe and Dickneite is insufficient to support a claim for deliberate indifference. Finally, the district court properly denied summary judgment to Defendants Englehart, Blake and Weinkein where the right to adequate nutrition was clearly established. View "Ingrassia v. Dicknette" on Justia Law

Claimants appealed from the bankruptcy court's orders where the bankruptcy court found the division in contempt and imposed sanctions against the division for willful violation of the discharge injunction in attempting to collect on a support debt after the debtors obtained a discharge. The BAP concluded that this case does not fall within the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction and thus the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the division’s claim; the BAP declined to consider the comity issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal; and the bankruptcy court erred in holding the division in contempt for willful violation of the discharge injunction because the discharge injunction does not apply to domestic support obligations under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5) and 1328(a). Accordingly, the BAP reversed the judgment. View "Missouri v. Spencer" on Justia Law

In this contract dispute between the parties, the district court granted summary judgment for GC Services, concluding that Addendum A unambiguously provided that the 2014 Agreement was not a “renewal” of the 2011 Agreement. Here, the term “renewals” was defined in Addendum A. Addendum A - drafted by Gateway - provided that the period in which Gateway would be entitled to receive commissions would be defined in the future “awarded contract,” a contract to which Gateway would not be a party. The court found that this may not have been a wise provision, from Gateway’s perspective, but it is not ambiguous. Because the court agreed with the district court that the relevant contract provisions are not ambiguous, the court may not consider extrinsic evidence, nor does the doctrine of contra proferentum apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gateway Customer Solutions v. GC Services L.P." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to embezzlement by a bank employee and was sentenced to 21-months in prison. Although defendant offered the sort of evidence that could have persuaded the district court to vary downward from the advisory Guidelines sentence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so. After viewing defendant's exhibits and considering her arguments in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, the district court concluded that the nature and circumstances of defendant's offense gave insight into her character, namely that she endeared herself to her coworkers and employers, established trust with them, stole from them for four years, attempted to hide the embezzlement, and then denied that it occurred. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kobriger" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the revocation of his supervised release following a hearing on violations of its conditions, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in relying on the results of a preliminary, field drug test to find that he committed a Grade B violation. United States v. Miller held that a district court may revoke a defendant's term of supervised release and impose a sentence of imprisonment if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's field drug test result, taken together with the testimony at the hearing, proved a Grade B violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant's supervised release and sentencing him in accordance with its finding that he had violated the condition not to possess controlled substances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Salsberry" on Justia Law