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

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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for armed bank robbery and violating the terms of supervised release imposed following an earlier conviction. Defendant argued that the district court clearly erred when it found that his statement, “I don’t want to talk, man,” was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent. However, defendant thereafter continued to talk to law enforcement, never clarifying his earlier statement or otherwise unequivocally invoking his right to remain silent. The court concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that defendant had not indicated a clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent; the district court did not err in concluding that defendant had waived his Miranda rights; and that, in light of the circumstances, defendant's waiver was voluntary. In any event, any error in denying the motion to suppress would have been harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in placing more weight on some mitigating factors and less weight on others. Finally, the court found no merit in defendant's argument that his consecutive 18-month revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not identify which sentencing factors it considered in imposing the sentence and did not take into account those previously listed mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Neiman Adams" on Justia Law

Robinson Helicopter petitioned for a writ of prohibition that would prevent the district court from enforcing an order directing Robinson Helicopter to file with the district court exhibits from depositions taken in Long v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. Long is a civil case that was filed in 2009 and closed in April 2012 after a settlement and judgment. Respondents, intervenors in the district court, seek the deposition exhibits for use in a civil action against Robinson that is pending in California state court and scheduled for trial on April 11, 2016. The court concluded that a writ should issue here, because the district court lacks power to impose any new discovery-related requirements on the parties to the Long case after that lawsuit was settled and closed in 2012. The exhibits at issue were never filed in the district court or otherwise made part of the record in Long. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court lacks authority at this juncture to require production of these documents for use by third parties. Insofar as Robinson Helicopter seeks additional prospective relief concerning deposition transcripts from Long that were filed pursuant to an order of the district court in 2014, the court denied the petition. Even assuming Robinson Helicopter has not waived any objection to the district court’s exercise of authority over the transcripts, there is no current controversy over access to them. Finally, the court denied Robinson Helicopter’s request for an award of fees and expenses. View "In re: Robinson Helicopter Co." on Justia Law

In his second trial, petitioner was again convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleged that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to a jury instruction regarding his justification defense. The court concluded that counsel's failure to object to the jury instruction was not prejudicial under Strickland v. Washington in light of the overwhelming evidence against petitioner. Therefore, the state court’s determination under Strickland was not unreasonable regarding counsel’s failure to object to the jury instruction, and there is no structural error in this case. Petitioner also alleged that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to a jury instruction that incorrectly stated that it was defendant who fired that shot that caused the victim's death. The court concluded that the error was not prejudicial; the state court's decision was not unreasonable; and that habeas relief will not be granted based on the cumulative effect of attorney errors. The court rejected defendant's additional arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Shawn Shelton v. Terry Mapes" on Justia Law

Nikko Jenkins killed four people, including Curtis Bradford, three weeks after he was released from prison after serving ten and a half years of a twenty-one year sentence. Plaintiff, Bradford's mother, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1988 and state law against the State and the Department of Corrections, and department officials. Plaintiff also filed suit against the county, the city, and CCS. Plaintiff alleged violation of Bradford’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law negligence claims under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 et seq. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the city, the county, and CCS because her claims are forfeited. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's section 1983 claims against the department officials in their individual capacities because there is no general substantive due process right to be protected against the release of criminals from confinement, even if that release violates state law, and the two exceptions to this rule are not applicable in this instance: first, no special relationship exists between the victim and Jenkins; and the state-created exception is inapplicable because Bradford was not a member of a limited, precisely definable group. Finally, plaintiff has forfeited any challenge to the district court's ruling dismissing her state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Glasgow v. Nebraska" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt of child pornography. The district court applied an advisory guidelines cross reference under USSG 2G2.2(c)(1) and sentenced defendant to the statutory maximum of 240 months in prison. In this case, defendant does not deny that the facts on which the district court based its application of the cross reference - defendant secretly making pornographic videos of his sexual relations with a minor - were relevant conduct in determining his advisory guidelines sentencing range. He also concedes that the statutory maximum sentence was not increased by these findings, and that he was in fact sentenced within the authorized statutory range. Thus, the only effect of the findings was to influence the district court’s exercise of its discretion to impose a sentence within that statutory range. The court concluded that this is a constitutionally permissible effect under Apprendi v. New Jersey as applied in United States v. Booker. Even if the facts warranting the cross reference were elements of a separate crime, that simply means the district court determined defendant's advisory guidelines range based on uncharged relevant conduct. Finally, the Sixth Amendment did not require that the district court determine the additional offenses that could have been charged and then submit the factual elements of those offenses to a jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Steffen" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the district court's judgment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(B), 213(a)(1), in favor of the Secretary for unpaid wages, re-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as a prospective injunction. Because the covered enterprises listed in section 203(s)(1)(B) include both those which provide custodial care and those which provide educational services, and because the district court found that Endless Possibilities provides educational services to children of preschool age, the district court did not err in finding that Endless Possibilities fits within the meaning of “preschool” as used in section 203(s)(1)(B). The district court did not err in calculating damages where the district court's determination of hours worked, based on reasonable inferences and detailed evidence from the Secretary, does not equate to clear error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Perez v. Contingent Care, LLC" on Justia Law