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

After Sandusky received an unsolicited fax from MedTox, Sandusky filed a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. The district court denied class certification, finding the class not ascertainable. Sandusky’s class definition includes: “All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages regarding lead testing services by or on behalf of Medtox, and (3) which did not display a proper opt out notice.” The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying class certification because the proposed class is clearly ascertainable. The court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion in holding that the class here does not meet the commonality and predominance requirements. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of fifty grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and the district court sentenced him as a career offender. The government concedes that defendant's conviction for escape is not a crime of violence in light of Johnson v. United States. Therefore, defendant is no longer a career offender under the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2). The court found that defendant preserved his vagueness challenge to the residual clause of the guidelines because he timely raised this objection before his sentencing hearing. The court conclude that the district court's alternative sentence was unsupported by the law and the error was not harmless. The district court's severe variance is unreasonable and the district court's other justifications do not support the degree of the upward variance either. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Burma, pleaded guilty to one count of failing to depart because he willfully failed or refused "to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary" for his departure after the BIA held that he was removable. Reviewing defendant's due process challenges de novo, the court concluded that the IJ did not violate due process by proceeding without an affirmative waiver of counsel from defendant where defendant waived his right to representation. Furthermore, defendant suffered no prejudice from not having been told of his right to appeal. The court rejected defendant's contention that he was given no reasonable opportunity to examine evidence against him because he did not receive a translated copy of the 2011 State Department report on human rights in Burma used to reject his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Finally, the court concluded that the district court committed no error precluding defendant from raising a coercion defense because the evidentiary predicate for a successful coercion defense is lacking. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Yan Naing" on Justia Law

Federated Mutual, the insurer, filed an interpleader suit to determine the rights of Moody Station and the Big Store to insurance proceeds. The district court found Moody Station was not entitled to the full amount and awarded attorney fees to Federated. The court concluded that Moody Station is correct that there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1335’s interpleader because the two adverse claimants are both citizens of Missouri. The court determined that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy is met. Although the district court did not explicitly find a partial loss, the district court implicitly rejected that a total loss occurred. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in determining the actual cash value of the destroyed property. The court concluded, however, that the district court clearly abused its discretion in ordering Moody Station to pay attorney fees to Federated where Federated has consistently opposed Moody Station’s attempts to collect on its policy and is not a disinterested stakeholder deserving attorney fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Federated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Moody Station and Grocery" on Justia Law

At the time defendant committed the crime of strangulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(8), the Sentencing Commission had yet to promulgate a corresponding sentencing guideline. Defendant was sentenced under the Guidelines section for Domestic Violence pursuant to USSG 2A6.2. On appeal, defendant appealed his 41 month sentence. The court found that the Domestic Violence guideline is the most analogous guideline because it is the only provision that accounts for the intimate relationship between the attacker and victim. The court also found that the district court did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when it sentenced defendant under the guideline in effect at the time of his offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iceman" on Justia Law

NSC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fireman's Fund, filed a declaratory judgment action against Dustex seeking a judicial determination that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Dustex in an arbitration proceeding, which, at the time, was pending before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The district court subsequently concluded that Dustex failed to establish the affirmative defense of estoppel. The court concluded that, under either Georgia or Iowa law, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dustex knew or should have known that Fireman's Fund was proceeding under a reservation of rights. The court's review of the district court's findings does not indicate that Fireman's Fund failed to provide Dustex with an effective reservation of rights that included a specific basis for Fireman's Fund's reservations about coverage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Surety Corporation. v. Dustex Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possession of child pornography and then appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that reasonable suspicion existed for the probation officers' seizure of a USB drive where a modified condition of defendant's supervised release was that he submit to a search of his residence at a reasonable time and manner. Under the totality of these circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that seizable items were stored on the USB drive and that they needed to secure it. The probation officers had both the requisite reasonable suspicion and the search condition necessary to lawfully seize the USB drive. Here, the district court found that defendant's admission to his probation officer that he had used a computer and that the USB drive in his possession contained adult and child pornography, combined with the facts on the record, formed a reasonable suspicion that he violated the conditions of his supervision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Makeeff" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Defendant concedes that circuit precedent forecloses his claim that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901, violates the non-delegation doctrine and exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The court concluded that courts should use a circumstance-specific approach to determining if a prior offense constitutes conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor under SORNA. In this case, the arrest affidavit stated that defendant masturbated in front of an eleven-year-old child. Therefore, the court concluded that his prior conviction for indecent exposure was a sex offense that was a specified offense against a minor because it was conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife and kids seek review of the BIA's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners contend that members of the Matazetas gang in Mexico will persecute them if they are returned to Mexico. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision based on alternative grounds concerning whether petitioners established a well-founded fear of “persecution” within the meaning of the asylum statute. The evidence supports the Board's conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable and could avoid persecution of petitioners. That police in Veracruz could not solve a crime committed by masked men and reported well after the fact does not dictate a finding that the government is unable to control persecution by the gang. Nor does the decision of police in the state of Puebla compel a finding of unwillingness or inability to control. Likewise, petitioners are not eligible for withholding of removal and substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Saldana v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor. Before trial, the government sought to prohibit defendant from introducing at trial e-mails that he had previously exchanged with purported prostitutes in which he rebuffed their services upon learning that they were underage. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; the emails were inadmissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, because he has failed to provide the court with any information with which to evaluate the probative quality of the e-mails pursuant to Rule 28(a)(8)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; defendant failed to make the required showing that the district court's supplemental instruction regarding the victim's age constituted an error; the prosecutor's improper statement of the law was harmless because the evidence indicates that defendant needed no persuasion; the prosecutor's statement's regarding the substantial step required to find attempt were not plainly improper; and the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for defendant's guilt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Golliher" on Justia Law