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

Plaintiff, sentenced to death in Missouri, filed suit against defendants, alleging that the State's method of execution is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudiced and observed that the order was not a final order subject to appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently granted a stay of execution. The parties then filed briefs regarding whether plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court did not properly enter a final judgment, and the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Rule 54(b) does not apply to a single-claim action. Plaintiff's complaint brought only a single claim against state officials and the district court resolved that single claim by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. In this case, the district court could not invoke Rule 54(b) to enter a final judgment, or to “certify” its order for immediate appeal, because the district court’s order did not leave any claims, or the rights of any parties, unadjudicated in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties. View "Johnson v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), the district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of 180 months in prison. The district court applied a sentencing enhancement under section 2252(b)(1) based on defendant's prior 1989 Missouri conviction for deviate sexual assault in the first degree. The court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not err by considering the charging document and not the facts underlying defendant's 1989 Missouri conviction. View "United States v. Sumner" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict defendant of the firearm and heroine possession charges. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his 1996 state felony conviction for possessing heroin with intent to deliver under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) where the prior-crimes evidence was relevant, probative, and not too remote in time to the instant offense, and because any potentially unfair prejudicial impact was mitigated by the district court’s limiting instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for producing child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the jury had more than ample evidence to convict defendant of producing child pornography. Defendant admitted that he had taken approximately ten pictures of his four-year-old nephew while his nephew was changing clothes. Defendant admitted to destroying the evidence. The court concluded that the absence of the images does not require an acquittal. The court also concluded that a comment by the government's attorney regarding defendant's choice to "zoom in" on his nephew's pubic area was not prejudicial because the effect of this alleged impropriety could have been only slight at best, and the district court's cautionary instruction would have cured any possible prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Paris" on Justia Law

Robert Dean Carter appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The ALJ concluded that Carter was not disabled because he did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments for chronic heart failure and because Carter had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a limited range of sedentary work. After Carter died, Carter's daughter, KKC, appealed the denial of benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Carter’s impairment did not meet section 4.02(B)(1) and 4.02(B)(3); the ALJ did not err by refusing to give controlling weight to the opinion of Carter's treating physician where the physician's statement at issue did not resolve the legal issue of whether Carter was disabled; and the ALJ’s RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "KKC v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence on four counts of making and subscribing a false tax return. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant knowingly and willfully underreported her income as professional adult entertainer; the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury; requiring the jury to decide unanimously whether the unreported income came from certain sources was unnecessary because it was not an essential element of the crime; each source provided alternative pieces of evidence to support each count of the indictment; even assuming duplicity in the indictment, the district court's instruction cured any potential prejudice created thereby; defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous and the government proved the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence based on defendant's testimony, and the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under USSG 2T1.1(b)(1); and the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court sentenced defendant to a within-Guidelines sentence of 33 months and considered mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fairchild" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, CSL, alleging violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. 213.055, 213.070. The district court granted CSL's motion for summary judgment. In regard to the sex discrimination claim, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding the credibility of his written warnings, and plaintiff's version of the events immediately preceding his firing fails to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the credibility of CSL’s stated basis for terminating his employment. Because plaintiff admitted that he failed to comply with CSL’s policies, no genuine issue of material fact remained with respect to the credibility of CSL’s assertion that plaintiff’s failure was the basis for the termination of his employment. Because plaintiff failed to show how he and a female employee engaged in similar conduct, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether CSL treated plaintiff less favorably than similarly situated female employees. Further, no genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether CSL treated plaintiff unfavorably relative to similarly situated employees; without facts connecting the comment at issue, made by one of Denn’s peers, to CSL’s decision to fire Denn, the statement does not give rise to a genuine issue of material fact regarding Denn’s discrimination claim; and the fact that other male employees were disciplined was insufficient to render summary judgment improper. In regard to the retaliation claim, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to point to any evidence showing that his discrimination complaint was a “contributing factor” to any adverse action taken by CSL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Denn v. CSL Plasma" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by performing a Terry stop without reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop where defendant bypassed an active crime scene to enter and sit in a suspect vehicle not yet secured or searched by law enforcement. Further, the suspect vehicle matched the description of a vehicle connected to an armed invasion and robbery three days prior. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Diriye" on Justia Law

Defendants Brenda Laws, Lareka Laws, Milton Laws, and Jameel Laws were convicted of charges related to their involvement in a scheme in which they filed more than 200 tax returns claiming first-time homebuyer tax credits to which the named taxpayer was not entitled. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the sophisticated means sentencing enhancement to Brenda under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). However, the district court erred in applying the organizer or leader enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a) where there is insufficient evidence to show that Brenda was an organizer or leader. The district court did not err in applying an enhancement to Brenda's sentence under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because the offense involved 50 or more victims. In regard to Milton's appeal, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion to reconsider its prior ruling and reopen the suppression issue; the district court did not err in finding that Milton was not in custody when he made the statements he seeks to suppress; and therefore the district court properly denied Milton's motion to suppress. In regard to Lareka and Jameel's appeal, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. Accordingly, the court reversed as to Brenda's sentence in regard to the application of the organizer/leader enhancement. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Laws" on Justia Law

The SEC filed a civil law enforcement action against Todd Duckson, the Fund, and related individuals and entities. A jury found Duckson liable for violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and for aiding and abetting the Fund's violations.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to admit the complete versions of the appraisals at issue under Federal Rule of Evidence 104 and 403. Further, Duckson cannot show that he was prejudiced by the district court's rulings. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Duckson's proposal to set forth separately in the verdict form each alleged misstatement or omission where Duckson has not shown how the district court's factual findings conflict with the jury's findings; the jury was instructed on the relevant time period at issue; and the district court's verdict form did not deprive Duckson of a meaningful right to appellate review of the remedies determination or the liability finding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Duckson" on Justia Law