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

Defendant appealed his 188 month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying a role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) where the record demonstrates that the conspiracy involved five participants and defendant directed the actions of two coconspirators by instructing them to deposit drug proceeds and by instructing one of them to send photos of drug packages. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by attributing to defendant 4.5 kilograms of actual methamphetamine. Finally, the government did not breach defendant's cooperation agreement by offering testimony regarding his proffer statements to support its drug quantity calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Gonzalez Alcalde" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to distribution of cocaine. Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea after a presentence report recommended an enhanced advisory guidelines sentence range based on a pending murder charge in state court. Under circuit precedent, misapprehension about the applicable guidelines calculation is not a fair and just reason to withdraw a plea, even if the confusion stemmed from erroneous legal advice. The court concluded that defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea because the district court explained to him the statutory range of punishments for both counts of the indictment, and the district court further advised defendants that it would order preparation of a presentence report and advised him how the district court would calculate a sentencing range. Because no record was developed on a Sixth Amendment claim in the district court, any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court also concluded that defendant failed to identify a plain error warranting relief in regard to his claim that the district court, by applying the cross reference to USSG 2A1.1 and sentencing him based on the increased advisory guideline range, violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Even if the premise of an unreasonable sentence were satisfied, defendant’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is not clearly correct under current law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Briggs" on Justia Law

St. Jude filed suit against Jose B. de Castro and Biosense, alleging state law claims of breach of contract and tortious interference. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the Minnesota choice-of-law provision in St. Jude's employment agreement with de Castro is valid because the parties acted in good faith and without the intent to evade the law; the district court correctly concluded that St. Jude's term-of-years employment agreement with de Castro is valid and enforceable under Minnesota law and that Biosense was liable for tortuously interfering with that agreement; the district court correctly concluded that St. Jude could recover damages for lost profits based on Biosense's tortious interference; and the district court correctly determined that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Biosense caused St. Jude to lose profits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. v. Biosense Webster, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Best Buy and three of its executives, alleging violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made fraudulent or recklessly misleading public statements in a press release and conference call, which artificially inflated and maintained Best Buy's publicly traded stock price until the misstatements were disclosed. In this interlocutory appeal, defendants challenged the district court's certification of the class. In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the Supreme Court concluded that loss causation has no logical connection to the facts necessary to establish the efficient market predicate to Basic, Inc. v. Levinson's fraud-on-the-market theory. The court agreed with the district court that, when plaintiffs presented a prima facie case that the Basic presumption applies to their claims, defendants had the burden to come forward with evidence showing a lack of price impact. However, what the district court ignored is that defendants did present strong evidence on this issue. Defendants rebutted the Basic presumption by submitting direct evidence (the opinions of both parties’ experts) that severed any link between the alleged conference call misrepresentations and the stock price at which plaintiffs purchased. Because plaintiffs presented no contrary evidence of price impact, they failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class, and the court reversed and remanded. View "IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to illegal reentry by a removed alien and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop where immigration officers had information to believe defendant had illegally reentered the United States and was residing in Hampton, Iowa. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the agent had reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime and therefore the traffic stop was lawful. The court rejected defendant's claim that his final order of removal in 2004 was not adequately explained to him and concluded that defendant's rights were adequately explained to him in Spanish and English, and that his decision to stipulate was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tamayo-Baez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of drug and firearms offenses, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition for habeas relief. Petitioner claimed that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to object to the application of the career-offender enhancement. He argued that his prior conviction for domestic-abuse assault in Iowa did not qualify as a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a). The court concluded that counsel's performance was objectively reasonable given the absence of a clearly controlling precedent requiring a different course of action, and in light of the substantial deference the court afforded trial counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kelly v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his camper pursuant to a search warrant and any statements following the search. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the protective sweep exception to the lieutenant's conduct and denying defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, the lieutenant did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when he opened the door to the camper, asked the individual inside to come out, and, in the process, observed contraband. The lieutenant had reasonable suspicion to conduct the sweep based upon defendant's declaration that his friend was inside the camper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pile" on Justia Law

After Eric Orloske shot his brother, Brian, to death after Eric tripped and fell down the stairs in his home while holding a loaded shotgun, the trustee for Brian's next of kin filed a wrongful death suit against Eric. At issue in this appeal is whether Country Mutual's homeowner's policy, which covered Eric's home, provided coverage for Brian's death. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Minnesota's reasonable-expectations doctrine is inapplicable in this case and correctly granted summary judgment to Country Mutual.The doctrine forces insurers to communicate the coverage and exclusions of their policies clearly; it is not a means of avoiding unambiguous policy language. Here, the policy expressly listed the criminal-acts exclusion - Eric had pleaded guilty to manslaughter for Brian's death - in the exclusion section of the policy between exclusions related to controlled substances and pollution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Orloske" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the USDA's determination that a portion of their farmland is a wetland within the meaning of the pertinent federal statutes and regulations. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the USDA, concluding that the agency's final decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law. In this case, the USDA did not err in determining that Site 1 had the requisite hydrology to quaify as a wetland, and the USDA properly determined that Site 1 would support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation under normal circumstances. View "Foster v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Subsequently, the United States Sentencing Commission reduced the drug quantity base offense levels by two (Amendment 782). The district court denied defendant's motion to reduce the sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). In Freeman v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether a sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement can be reduced under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). In this case, Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in Freeman is controlling. Applying Freeman, the court concluded that defendant's plea agreement clearly fails to fit the first category of cases that Justice Sotomayor determined are "based on" the Guidelines - the plea agreement does not expressly use a particular Guidelines sentencing range. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law