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

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the search of a vehicle after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found a firearm during a protective search of the vehicle. The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to draw his weapon, order defendant out of the vehicle, detain defendant in handcuffs, and sweep the passenger seat of the vehicle for weapons. Therefore, the investigative stop and protective sweep of the vehicle was not more intrusive than necessary, and it did not amount to a de facto arrest. The court also concluded that any error in applying a four-level increase to defendant's offense level under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because he possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense would be harmless because the alternative upward variance was substantively reasonable based on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court adequately considered the section 3553(a) factors and did not rely on any portion of the PSIR to which defendant objected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanford" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently appealed his 180 month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on three prior violent felony convictions. The court concluded that the district court erred by concluding that defendant's aggravated assault conviction was a violent felony and sentencing him as an armed career criminal. In this case, subsection (a)(1) of Arkansas' aggravated assault statute only requires the government to prove that a defendant's conduct created "a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury" and therefore it does not qualify as a violent felony under the force clause of section 924(e)(2). Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's failure to disclose her claims in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings judicially estopped her from pursuing them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Van Horn v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 110 month sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession. The court concluded that defendant's previous battery conviction under Ark. Code Ann. 5-13-202 was for a crime of violence because it included the use of violent force as an element where it is impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force. The court also concluded that the district court correctly calculated defendant's base offense level of 22 under USSG 2K2.1 of the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rice" on Justia Law

Rand-Heart filed a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Dolan Company's securities under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a). The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim and thus erred in dismissing the secondary liability claim under section 20(a). In this case, taking the allegations as true, DiscoverReady's financial instability caused by the decline in Bank of America was, at the least, so obvious that defendant must have been aware of it. Further, defendant's statements about "double-digit" growth and "lumpiness" are not protected by the Act's safe-harbor provision where these statements are not meaningfully cautionary and they are not company-specific warnings. Finally, the district court did not err in finding no loss-causation for the time period at issue. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. Dolan" on Justia Law

The Board filed a complaint alleging that Seedorff had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by repudiating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between QBA and Local 150 to which Seedorff has agreed to be bound. The ALJ ruled that Seedorff did indeed violate sections 8(a)(1) and (5) by repudiating a valid pre-hire CBA and by failing to abide by the hiring hall and benefit provisions of the contract. The Board affirmed the ALJ's analysis. The court denied enforcement and vacated the Board's Decision and Order, concluding that the Board's analysis was contrary to the NLRA and pre-hire CBAs as construed in prior judicial decisions and the Board's own precedent. View "NLRB v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to knowingly distribute a controlled substance and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court did not plainly err in sua sponte dismissing the superseding indictment where defendant is not guaranteed the right to an indictment including a full and accurate factual account of the alleged crime, and the government did not violate her rights and did not prejudice her by removing the names of her codefendants; the district court did not err in allowing the government to make this statement during closing argument; the district court did not plainly err in making statements about a different criminal matter; the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered and discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and the district court did not err in denying safety-valve relief because defendant failed to show that she truthfully provided all information to the government. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography, was sentenced to 60 months in imprison, and was placed on five years of supervised release with a special condition imposed that restricts his use of electronic devices and the internet. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in imposing a special condition limiting defendant's computer use and internet access where the record demonstrates that for the past decade defendant actively downloaded thousands of child pornography images, and defendant also shared files over the internet through a file sharing program. In this case, the computer and internet restriction imposed by the district court is reasonable because it is not a total ban on internet and computer use. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Goettsch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for embezzling union funds. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant had the fraudulent intent to deprive Local 314 of its money, funds, property, or other assets; the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's proposed jury instruction to include the requirement that he "lacked a good faith belief that the expenditure was for the legitimate benefit of the Union"; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting checks and invoices to show that the Union paid defendant for identical services, making it more probable that the services were never rendered; and the district court did not err in delaying the trial by three days to ensure a full 12-member jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant Mary Ann Ramos and her son, Earl James, were convicted on several drug-distribution counts. Defendants raised several issues on appeal. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Mary's conviction where the evidence was sufficient to show that Mary knew the specific features of á-PVP that make it a controlled substance. In this case, the evidence allowed the jury to infer Mary’s knowledge of the specific features of the substance that make it a controlled substance analogue, and she understood the pharmacological effects of the substance. Because the district court correctly applied the guidelines and because the expert's testimony supported the district court’s factual conclusion that THC was the most similar substance to the synthetic cannabinoids at issue, the court found no clear error in the application of the 1:167 marijuana-equivalency ratio and, therefore, the determination of defendants’ base offense levels. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentences. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law