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

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected defendant's claim that his civil right to possess a firearm was restored by an amendment to the Missouri Constitution where the Supreme Court of Missouri has held to the contrary under State v. Clay. Further, the district court properly concluded that defendant's two second-degree domestic assault and second-degree burglary convictions qualified as predicate felonies under 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Therefore, the district court properly found defendant to be an armed career criminal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, conditionally pled guilty to illegal reentry. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment, contending that the district court erred in concluding, without an evidentiary hearing, that her original removal order “did not violate her right to due process.” The court concluded that defendant failed to establish a due process violation and the district court did not err in denying her motion to dismiss without a hearing. In this case, the district court properly rejected defendant's claim that she had the right to withdraw her application for admission at the border without further factual development, and her uncontested factual assertion that she would have sought to exercise that right. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Santos-Pulido" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 192-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine near a school. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in imposing a three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) because defendant was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity that involved at least five participants. The court concluded that Elly Kohl, the mother of Casey Duhme's child, was a participant in the criminal activity where Duhme provided two boxes of the pseudoephedrine, one of which came from Kohl. The court also concluded that defendant's wife, Patricia, was a participant in the criminal activity where she purchased pseudoephedrine pills for her husband on two prior occasions, Patricia allowed her husband to manufacture methamphetamine inside their shared apartment, and Patricia fled with defendant and Duhme after the attempt to manufacture methamphetamine went awry. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Starks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 88-month sentence after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a USSG 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement because defendant's prior conviction of assault while displaying a dangerous weapon under Iowa Code 708.1(3) and 708.2(3) categorically qualified as a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a)(1); the district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felon offense and the application of the enhancement avoids the double counting concerns Note 14(C)'s exclusion seeks to prevent; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boots" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his father's estate, filed a wrongful death action alleging that Amtrak negligently caused his father's death. Plaintiff claimed that the moving train from which his father fell had inadequate safety features and instructions for the crew. The district court granted summary judgment to Amtrak. The court concluded that the district court did not err by granting Amtrak summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim where circumstantial evidence in the record supports the inference that plaintiff's father accidentally fell out of a right side exit door on the train which he or someone else had opened. In this case, the record does not support plaintiff's contention that Amtrak proximately caused the death of plaintiff's father. The court concluded that Amtrak's failure to install door status indicators was not the cause of death. Plaintiff has also failed to present a genuine issue of fact showing that Amtrak proximately caused the death by failing to instruct its crew adequately on hazards for confused passengers. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's challenge to two of the district court's discovery rulings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Haukereid v. National Railroad Passenger Co." on Justia Law

FedEx petitioned for review of the Board's orders forcing it to bargain with the unions, arguing that the Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile standard violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 159(a); circuit law; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to review FedEx's claims, the court concluded that the first step in the analysis described by Specialty Healthcare, in which the Board analyzes the union's proposed bargaining unit under the traditional community of interest test, is not a departure from the Board's precedent and is consistent with the requirements of section 9(b) of the NLRA; because the Specialty Healthcare framework does not make the extent of union organization "controlling," the court concluded that it does not violate section 9(c)(5); and the Board did not violate the APA by announcing the overwhelming community of interest standard in the course of adjudicating Specialty Healthcare rather than by notice and comment rulemaking. In this case, the court concluded that the Board's decisions to certify bargaining units consisting of the road and city drivers were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court denied FedEx's petitions for review and granted the Board's cross-petitions for enforcement. View "FedEx Freight v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, complaining of right-shoulder and arm pain, appealed the denial of his application for disability benefits. The court concluded that the ALJ's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence because plaintiff has the residual functioning capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work, and the ALJ limited plaintiff to work involving no overhead reaching with his right arm. Further, the medical evidence supports the RFC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Liner v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of wire fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the indictment sufficiently contained the elements of the offense charged; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony of co-conspirators where the evidence presented was sufficient to independently corroborate the existence of a conspiracy; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors - particularly defendant's criminal history and the need to protect the public - and the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the sentence it found necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of section 3553(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Whitlow" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an independent lease truck driver for FMC Transport, filed suit against FMC Transport, alleging racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FMC Transport. FMC Transport's accident review board had concluded that plaintiff's accident was preventable and the company later terminated him. Although plaintiff is a member of a protected class and he did suffer an adverse employment action, and even if he did meet FMC Transport's legitimate expectations, the court concluded that he failed to present evidence that supports an inference of discrimination. Further, plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of racial discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework, because he has not shown that the circumstances of his termination gave rise to an inference of discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Macklin v. FMC Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 61-month sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court correctly overruled defendant's objection to the district court's finding that his prior felony conviction for resisting arrest by fleeing, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 575.150, was a “crime of violence” within the meaning of USSG 4B1.2(a) where the court held that a felony violation of section 575.150 is categorically a crime of violence; if there was error in applying the residual clause to defendant's prior conviction under Johnson v. United States, then the error is not “obvious” or “plain,” and relief is not warranted under the plain-error standard of review; and the court declined to use a plain error standard of review in considering his claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by considering his prior conviction for resisting arrest by fleeing because it was not a conviction for which he received criminal history points under USSG 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c). In this case, the sentence imposed is well within the statutory range authorized for the offense of conviction and is consistent with the court's view of the Sentencing's Commission's advice, both past and present. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law