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

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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Kenya, seeks review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's denial of her applications for adjustment of status and waiver of removal. The court agreed with the government that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary decision to deny an adjustment of status and a fraud waiver. The court concluded that, notwithstanding the approved Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii), 1229b(b)(2)(A), petition, the IJ was authorized to determine, based on the evidence and testimony, that petitioner’s application for an adjustment of status and a fraud waiver should be denied in the exercise of discretion. Further, the court denied the petition for review with respect to petitioner's due process claims because she has not shown both a fundamental procedural error and prejudice as a result of the error. View "Mutie-Timothy v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana, traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to distribute proceeds of and promote an unlawful activity, promotion of money laundering, and forfeiture. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The court agreed with the district court and the magistrate judge that at least some of the encounter between the law enforcement officer and defendant just following the traffic stop was consensual; just about four minutes after the completion of the stop, defendant admitted to possessing a personal use amount of an illegal narcotic and the ultimate search of the vehicle by the officer was lawful; and the time between the completion of the stop and defendant's admission regarding his possession of drugs does not run afoul of constitutional constraints because the time was de minimis intrusion on defendant's personal liberty and the resulting search and arrest was supported by probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Englehart" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Bob Evans, alleging employment discrimination in violation of federal and Missouri law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bob Evans. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel to bar plaintiff's claims where, pursuant to the New Hampshire v. Maine factors, plaintiff took inconsistent positions between his bankruptcy case and this case; the bankruptcy court, by discharging plaintiff's unsecured debts, adopted the position that his discrimination claims did not exist; and plaintiff could have derived an unfair advantage in the bankruptcy proceedings by concealing his claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging that counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress the search of his cell phone data incident to arrest. At the time of defendant's arrest, there was no precedent from either the Eighth Circuit or the Supreme Court requiring a search warrant for the search of cell phone data incident to arrest. Applying the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," the court concluded that counsel did not act constitutionally deficient in failing to file a motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Basham v. United States" on Justia Law

O&S challenged the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) dismissal of its appeal after the bankruptcy court confirmed a reorganization plan proposed by O&S. The BAP concluded that O&S did not have standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order confirming its proposed plan. The court found that, in light of the strong policy favoring finality in bankruptcy proceedings, the language in the confirmed plan was not sufficient to reserve O&S’s right to appeal from the plan confirmation or to place the bankruptcy court and creditors on notice that O&S would seek such relief. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BAP correctly held that O&S failed to carry its burden to demonstrate standing. The court affirmed the judgment. View "O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Fin. Serv." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Tanzania, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for adjustment of status. The court concluded that, although the IJ did misquote Form I-9, the entirety of his analysis shows he was properly analyzing the key legal issue: whether petitioner intended to represent himself as a citizen or a national. Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that petitioner falsely represented himself to be a citizen. The court also concluded that petitioner is not eligible for waiver of his ineligibility and the IJ did not violate petitioner's right to due process when he admitted evidence of petitioner's false representation on the I-9 Form. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Godfrey v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receiving, attempting to receive, and accessing with intent to view child pornography. The court concluded that the notice given defendant failed to comport with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f) because defendant was not given a timely copy of the Network Investigative Technique (NIT) warrant and the notice provided by the government was insufficient. The court further concluded that the district court's finding that any Rule 41 violation was not due to reckless disregard of proper procedure was not clearly erroneous. Moreover, there is no evidence of prejudice to defendant. Accordingly, the delayed notice to defendant of the NIT warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment and so did not warrant suppression of evidence obtained from it. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by sustaining the government's hearsay objection to his use of an affidavit during cross-examination of a witness where the affidavit contained out-of-court statements made by the agent, and defendant sought to offer them for the truth of the matters asserted. Therefore, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Welch" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of the EPA's approval of the Minnesota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. Specifically, petitioners challenged the EPA's approval of Minnesota's decision to use the Transport Rule in place of source-specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), and Minnesota’s reasonable-progress goals. The court concluded that the EPA’s approval of Minnesota’s reliance on the Transport Rule was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. In this case, the EPA did not rely on factors that Congress did not intend it to consider, did not entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem, and did not offer an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency. The court also concluded that the EPA acted rationally within its sphere of expertise when it approved the reasonable-progress goals in the Plan, explaining that Minnesota adequately demonstrated that its progress goals are reasonable. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "National Parks Conservation v. EPA" on Justia Law

Creditor appealed the bankruptcy court's order granting debtor's motion to avoid its judgment lien. Creditor concedes that its judgment lien attached to the residence, but argues that its judgment lien did not fix upon debtor’s tenant by the entirety property interest in the residence, because debtor did not have an interest to which its judgment lien could fix. The panel concluded that, under Missouri law, even if it conceded that the residence was not subject to Creditor’s lien and that the lien was therefore unenforceable, the panel would still find that an unenforceable judgment lien arose, so that it is possible for debtor to avoid it under 11 U.S.C. 522(f). Further, even if the docketing and registration of Creditor’s judgment lien did not attach an enforceable judgment lien to the residence, at a minimum, the judgment lien creates a cloud on the title to the residence. View "CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law