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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court permissibly concluded that an investigator's testimony would be helpful to the jury in understanding the recorded phone calls at issue and the district court properly admitted this testimony; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and defendant's sentence of 360 months in prison is not substantively unreasonable where the district court had ample reason to treat the coconspirators differently, and defendant's sentence was longer due primarily to an extensive criminal history that qualified him as a career offender and his refusal to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Avalos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Matt Holten and Jeff Ellis under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants, law enforcement officers, used excessive force while taking plaintiff into custody. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal, and he eventually filed a brief challenging only the district court’s dismissal of the claim against Holten. The notice of appeal, however, specified that plaintiff was appealing only a different order in the case. Where an appellant specifies one order of the district court in his notice of appeal, but fails to identify another, the notice is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction to review the unmentioned order. Where a district court dismisses one claim at an early stage of the case, and later enters an order and judgment dismissing a second claim, a notice of appeal that cites only the later order and judgment does not confer appellate jurisdiction to review the earlier order. In this case, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order not mentioned in plaintiff's notice of appeal. Because plaintiff failed to raise any arguments in regard to the order he did mention, the court determined that plaintiff has abandoned any challenge to that order. View "Rosillo v. Holten" on Justia Law

Securitas petitioned for review of the Board's order allowing certain class of Securitas's workers to seek union representation when the Board determined that Securitas failed to show the workers were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 152(11). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Securitas failed to carry its burden of proving that the employees at issue, lieutenants, were supervisors under section 152(11). Furthermore, the disclosure of "safeguards information" was not the exclusive means by which Securitas could have satisfied its burden of proof. The court agreed with the Board that Securitas failed to present any specific exemplar evidence of a lieutenant exercising independent judgment as a response team leader. Therefore, it was unnecessary to address whether the Board erred by stating Securitas could have submitted safeguards information under a protective order. Accordingly, the court denied Securitas's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Securitas Critical v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant to 180 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Because defendant did not challenge any statements relating to the drug investigation, the allegedly false statements about the homicide investigation were not necessary to find probable cause to support issuing a search warrant. The court agreed with the district court that the unchallenged statements in the affidavit provided sufficient facts to support a warrant to search defendant’s home. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to hold a Franks hearing and to suppress the evidence. The court concluded, in light of United States v. Johnson, that defendant's prior convictions under Missouri law can no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA's residual clause. In this case, the Missouri statute at issue includes conduct that falls under the ACCA's force clause; the statute also defines the offense to include fleeing from an officer; and, applying the modified categorical approach, the court cannot conclude that any of his prior convictions were for violent felonies under the force clause. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the court does not impose any limitations on the evidence the district court may consider. View "United States v. Shockley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kozlov and Tchikobava, employees of Albatross, were injured in a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of AWG. The employee, Michael Scott, was killed in the crash. Kozlov and Tchikobava both filed personal injury lawsuits against AWG and Scott's estate. Because both Kozlov's and Tchikobava's negligence was equal to or greater than AWG's negligence, plaintiffs were barred from recovery. Because the jury found Kozlov 84% at fault, he was barred from recovery. Kozlov's contributory negligence in the accident, according to the jury's sole discretion, was greater than AWG's negligence (8%). Similarly, Tchikobava's contributory negligence (8%) was equal to AWG's negligence, and thus, he was also barred from recovery. The court concluded that the jury's assessment of each party's negligence and the resulting damages are not clearly against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence; the district court properly instructed the jury on proximate cause and the instructions Tchikobava offered were inapposite; Tchikobava's argument regarding the noneconomic damage calculation was waived; even if the issue were properly preserved, the damages were adequate; Kozlov was not prejudiced by misleading jury instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting factual issues regarding Kozlov's negligence regarding lights on the trailer, qualifications as a truck driver, and Tchikobava's negligence in failing to train or supervise; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant's expert to testify, denying Kozlov's motion for leave to amend, and excluding evidence of Scott's prior accident and his questionable health. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Officers received a report that a man might need medical attention. The officers found defendant lying on the sidewalk next to a fallen bicycle, and when the officer righted defendant's bicycle, an unzipped bag attached to the handlebars came open, revealing two firearms and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of drugs and a firearm. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion because the officer did not conduct a search, but rather saw defendant's firearm in plain view in a public area. The court concluded that the officer's movement of the bicycle under the unique circumstances of this case did not constitute a search and did not therefore implicate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant also challenged the imposition of a condition of supervised release that he obtain no additional tattoos. The government argued that the cost of tattoos would provide a hindrance to defendant's societal rehabilitation because the cost would interfere with his ability to pay for court-ordered substance abuse and mental health counseling. The court disagreed, concluding that the prohibition on this expenditure is not related to defendant's educational, vocational, medicinal, or other correctional needs, and has no connection to the other 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. The court modified the condition. View "United States v. Campos" on Justia Law

Defendant and the entities he controls appeal a judgment entered on jury verdicts finding securities fraud. The SEC alleged that defendant and his companies violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a); Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5; and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. 80b-6(4), and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 275.206(4)-8. The SEC also alleged that defendant personally violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78t(a), and aided and abetted SCAF’s violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and SIA’s violations of Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8, 15 U.S.C. 78t(e) (aiding-and-abetting liability). The jury found liability on every count except the alleged violations of Section 17(a)(1) and the allegation that defendant personally aided and abetted SCAF's violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Because the verdicts in this case are not actually inconsistent, the court assumed without deciding that defendant preserved his argument and proceeded to the merits. The jury's finding that defendant did not violate Section 17(a)(1), but did violate Rule 10b-5 was not inconsistent because the bar for finding liability was higher under Section 17(a)(1) than under Rule 10b-5(b); the jury could have found liability under Section 17(a)(3), requiring only negligence, without finding the intent or severe recklessness necessary for liability under Section 17(a)(1); there is no inconsistency in the jury finding that defendant personally violated Rule 10b-5, but did not aid and abet SCAF in violating the same rule; the court agreed with the district court that the jury need not agree on a particular false statement or misleading omission for liability under Section 17(a)(2) or Rule 10b-5(b); and the disgorgement award the district court ordered here was a permissible equitable remedy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "SEC v. Quan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and two counts of making a false claim against the United States. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her filing of fraudulent 1099-OID forms. Defendant argued that the district court erred when it excluded a video about fractional-reserve banking from evidence that she claims supported her good-faith defense. The court concluded that the district court's exclusion of the video from the jury deliberations did not affect defendant's substantial rights and admission of the video would not have changed the verdict. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the video. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McQuarry" on Justia Law

Homecare providers challenge the constitutionality of a Minnesota statute designating them state employees for the purpose of unionization, Minn. Stat. 179A.54. In this interlocutory appeal, the homecare providers renew their motion preliminarily to enjoin the state from holding an election and certifying an exclusive representation. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the event the homecare providers attempted to stop - the election and subsequent certification of the Services Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota (SEIU) as the exclusive representative - has already occurred.The court also concluded that the resulting harm from the certification of SEIU as the exclusive representative is not capable of repetition because SEIU has already been certified, and the underlying legal issues do not evade review because the homecare providers’ challenge to the Act is still pending before the district court. Accordingly, because no exception applies, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bierman v. Dayton" on Justia Law

ERISA Plaintiffs, administrators of Employee Benefit Plans governed by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., who entered into securities lending agreements with Wells Fargo, seek to reverse the district court's judgment that it was bound by collateral estoppel and thus required to find against ERISA Plaintiffs and in favor of Wells Fargo on their ERISA claims. Other plaintiffs brought state common law claims. ERISA Plaintiffs and common-law plaintiffs were represented by the same law firm. Following the trial, the parties simultaneously submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to the ERISA claims. In its submission, Wells Fargo asserted that collateral estoppel should apply and that based on the jury verdict, the court was bound to find that there was no breach of fiduciary duty. The district court determined that it was constrained by collateral estoppel to render judgment on ERISA Plaintiffs’ claims consistent with the jury’s determination and issued judgment, dismissing the ERISA Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims with prejudice. ERISA Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the district court erred in failing to find that Wells Fargo waived any right to assert that the district court was bound by the jury’s findings. The court vacated because the district court failed to consider whether the parties waived the application of collateral estoppel. The court remanded for the district court determine whether waiver occurred. View "Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law