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

The State of Nebraska petitioned for review after the EPA rejected Nebraska’s best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Gerald Gentleman Station, substituting a Federal Implementation Plan. Conservation organizations oppose Nebraska's petition and seek review of the EPA's plan. Nebraska Public Power intervened on behalf of the EPA. Given Nebraska’s errors and EPA’s determination that Nebraska’s action was unreasoned, the court denied the petition for review. In this case, the EPA did not exceed its statutory authority in disapproving the BART determination by determining that Nebraska's BART determination for the Station was based on flawed analysis and an unreasonable conclusion. The court also concluded that the EPA properly relied on the Transport Rule for the Station and the EPA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a geographic enhancement. The court denied the petitions for review. View "State of Nebraska v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision dismissing his appeal from an order of removal. The court held that the IJ did not commit a fundamental error by failing to inform petitioner about asylum or other possible avenues of relief. Therefore, petitioner's due process argument fails because he has not shown that the IJ committed a fundamental procedural error. The court further held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen or remand the case because the evidence was previously discoverable and because petitioner points to no other reason why he could not have found the evidence through the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Alva-Arellano v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) holding that Starion Financial is entitled to recover the attorney's fees it incurred while collecting on its secured debt in the course of debtors' proceedings. The BAP remanded to the bankruptcy court. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because resolution of the timeliness and reasonableness of the fee application affect the merits of the underlying dispute over the fee request and thus the bankruptcy court on remand is left with more than a "purely mechanical or ministerial task." View "Starion Fin. v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Demien, the unsuccessful bidder for the construction of a new firehouse, filed suit against the District under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District violated federal and state constitutional rights, as well as state law, in the bidding process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that it need only determine whether Damien has Article III standing under Federal law and not whether Damien has standing under Missouri law. Determining that Demien has Article III standing, the court concluded that Demien has abandoned its claims under the First Amendment by failing to argue them before the district court, and that Demien failed to allege that the District deprived Demien of any entitlement, and so it failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court concluded that, under Missouri law, there is no property right to the lowest bidder, and standing to bring a state court claim of deprivation of property rights does not establish a protected property interest. In this case, the District stated that it may accept the lowest bid, but does not need to. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Demien Construction Co. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law

Bettor Racing sought judicial review of NIGC finding that Bettor Racing had committed three violations of the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2711(a), and NIGC's issuance of a Notice and Civil-Fine Assessment. The court concluded that the facts support NIGC’s finding that Bettor Racing (1) operated without an NIGC-approved management contract, (2) operated under two unapproved modifications, and (3) held the sole proprietary interest in the gaming operations. Therefore, the district court did not err in upholding the charged violations. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding the $5 million fine both reasonable and constitutional. Finally, the court rejected Bettor Racing's contention that NIGC violated its right to due process when the agency dismissed the case on summary judgment without a hearing because NIGC relied on undisputed facts in reaching its conclusion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bettor Racing, Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Comm." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate with PTSD, filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights because defendants were indifferent to his medical needs, and that defendants retaliated against him by transferring him to TSCI and by reclassifying him. In this interlocutory appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, the record shows that defendants met plaintiff's medical needs beyond the minimum standard required where they were aware of his medical needs and took steps to meet those needs. The court concluded that there was no deprivation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights because plaintiff cannot show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference; plaintiff has no First Amendment claim because none of plaintiff's activities were protected and none of defendants' actions were retaliatory; and there is no cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim because there has been no constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed the case. View "Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), alleging that the Plan erroneously determined his pension benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the Plan. The court concluded that none of the conflicts of interest and procedural irregularities alleged by plaintiff “caused a serious breach of the plan administrator’s fiduciary duty” which warranted departure from the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. In this case, the district court correctly reviewed the decision of the Plan administrator for an abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supports the Plan administrator’s decision to exclude a 2006 sign-on bonus from pension-qualifying earnings and there was no abuse of discretion; and the Plan administrator’s interpretation of offsets for retirement benefits was reasonable because it was not inconsistent with Plan language, was consistent with Plan goals and ERISA, and rationally construed the offset so that the Normal Retirement Benefit under the Plan does not vary because of the form of payment chosen under another plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ingram v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n" on Justia Law

In consolidated petitions for review, petitioner seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that he is removable as an alien convicted of two separate crimes involving moral turpitude, and the BIA's decision denying petitioner's "Motion to Reconsider or Reopen Notwithstanding his Removal from the United States.” Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United States as a child. On September 27, 2006, petitioner was convicted of soliciting prostitution in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.324, subd. 2. The court concluded that, because petitioner failed to establish a realistic probability Minnesota courts would apply section 609.324, subd. 2, to crimes that did not involve moral turpitude, the Board did not err in deciding that petitioner’s solicitation conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. The court also concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner's arguments did not warrant further review or a fuller explanation, and therefore the Board properly denied petitioner's motion. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions. View "Gomez-Gutierrez v.Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the record shows that defendant stipulated to a 180 month sentence in his plea agreement. Further, nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave improper weight to an irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. The court denied defendant's motion requesting new counsel and raising new legal issues. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentenced and denied defendant's motion. View "United States v. Lovell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pled guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute and then appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court concluded that the drug dog was reliable and the affidavit in this case gave sufficient facts about the dog’s reliability. Moreover, all the other facts support probable cause: defendant was a licensed pilot for less than a month, he purchased the plane months before, he was flying a non-commercial aircraft a long distance at night, he deviated from his flight plan, and he displayed evasive behavior at the hotel. The court further concluded that, because there was probable cause that the aircraft contained evidence of a crime, the plane could be held until the warrant issued. Therefore, defendant could not have simply left on the aircraft, and his arrest in the hotel room and his subsequent detention awaiting the search warrant were lawful. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law