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

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of dual status National Guard technicians who had their benefits determined prior to the court's issuance of Petersen v. Astrue and would like to have their benefits readjusted to take advantage of the decision to avoid application of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's decision to reject the application of mandamus jurisdiction where the district court held that there is no clear, nondiscretionary duty on behalf of the SSA to apply the Peterson decision to plaintiffs. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a colorable constitutional claim on equal protection grounds that would justify the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(g)’s jurisdictional limitations. Plaintiffs’ due process claim also does not support application of an exception to 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchael v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to drug offenses and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly sentenced defendant as a Career Offender under the second clause of U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(e)(1) because defendant's sentence for his 1992 drug possession crime exceeded on year and one month, and resulted in incarceration during the fifteen-year period before his current offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 202 months' imprisonment where his sentence was substantively reasonable. In this case, the district court considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of possession of child pornography and subsequently appealed his conviction and sentence of 120 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an e-mail from the victim to defendant as non-hearsay under F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B)(i); the district court did not plainly err by allowing the victim to testify about the content of the victim's written statement because any error was harmless; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of child pornography; the district court did not err by applying a cross-reference in U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(c)(1); and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Burch" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that ESI is systematically denying payment of compound drug claims without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's "Claims Regulation." 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court concluded that there is no need for injunctive relief under section 502(a)(3), or for equitable relief to enforce or clarify the beneficiary’s rights under the plan under section 502(a)(1)(B). In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction requested by plaintiffs as assignees of plan beneficiaries because plaintiffs have cited no reported decision, and the court has found none, where a circuit court has upheld a private plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief mandating the future procedures an ERISA plan must follow to comply with the Claims Regulation. In the alternative, the court concluded that plaintiffs do not have standing under ERISA to assert harm to themselves because they are not ERISA beneficiaries. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Grasso Enter. v. Express Scripts" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), because he had three predicate offenses. Defendant's prior Missouri conviction was for committing second-degree assault by knowingly attempting to cause physical injury to another by means of a dangerous instrument. The court held that defendant's conviction for Assault Second Degree, which constitutes an attempted use of physical force, qualifies as a “violent felony” within the meaning of section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) and affirmed the district court’s application of the ACCA enhancement to defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to aiding and abetting a bank robbery and then appealed her sentence of 97 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court’s reliance, in part, on defendant’s knowledge of her co-defendant’s past use of a firearm in a bank robbery sufficiently supported the U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) sentencing enhancement for use of a firearm. In this case, the co-defendant's use of a firearm was reasonably foreseeable. Because the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daudinot" on Justia Law

McCaffree brought a class action suit on behalf of participating employees against Principal, the company with whom McCaffree had contracted to provide a retirement plan’s investment options, alleging that Principal had charged McCaffree’s employees excessive fees in breach of a fiduciary duty Principal owed to plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Principal's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because McCaffree failed to demonstrate a valid claim under ERISA. In this case, McCaffree's first argument fails because Principal owed no duty to plan participants during its arms-length negotiations with McCaffree, and the remaining four arguments fail because McCaffree did not plead a connection between any fiduciary duty Principal may have owed and the excessive fees Principal allegedly charged. View "McCaffree Fin. Corp. v. Principal Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his motion to reopen. The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because his newly submitted evidence was previously discoverable. The BIA noted that the "new" documents petitioner submitted - including his marriage license from 2003, rental agreement from 2006, anniversary cards, sales receipts, tax returns, and photos - predated the March 2012 hearing. Further, petitioner conceded that he was never able to retrieve these documents from his attorney but was able to submit different supporting documents to the BIA. Because, the court believed that the BIA's explanation for its decision was rational and in accordance with the record, the court denied the petition for review. View "Makundi v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admissibility of the reverse F.R.E. 404(b) evidence regarding the victim's prior criminal conviction; the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in deciding that defendant's proffered evidence regarding motive and bias against defendant was inadmissible under Rule 403; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim's 911 call under the excited utterance exception of Rule 803(2); and the district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Boman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against defendants. The district court entered a default judgment against defendants as sanction for discovery abuses and then proceeded to enter default judgment against defendant Steven West. The court concluded that the district court and the magistrate judge did not abuse their discretion in declining to delay a hearing for damages based on West's medical issues where they were clearly skeptical of West's credibility based on their experience with him during the discovery process. The court rejected West's argument that the district court erred by not deducting overhead and operating costs from its calculation of defendants’ profits. Accordingly, because the court found no error in the district court's rulings, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. v. West" on Justia Law