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

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

After the parties' dispute over insurance policy liability coverage, plaintiffs and Cincinnati submitted a joint complaint for declaratory judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the Business Owners Package (BOP) and Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies issued by Cincinnati prohibited stacking where both policies cover the same injury, such that the maximum coverage for the injury is $1,000,000. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati. View "Gohagan v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and then appealed the district court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a search of his vehicle. In this case, the police observed defendant engage in behavior consistent with a hand-to-hand drug transaction from inside the suspect vehicle; the officers then recovered a baggie of drugs that defendant discarded outside the vehicle; and the officers smelled an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. In light of these facts, the court concluded that the officers had ample reason to believe that the vehicle contained marijuana or other evidence of drug-related activity. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to search and the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Brian Daniel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lisa and Frederic Fezard, employees of UCP, filed suit seeking overtime pay contending that the living arrangement in private residences requires additional work time that should be compensated as overtime. At issue is the phrase "private home" in a regulatory provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(15). The district court granted summary judgment to UCP. The court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to UCP because the dwelling units in which the employees provided services were private homes. The court also concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to UCP because Ms. Fezard failed to provide evidence from which a jury could conclude that the nonretaliatory bases for termination asserted by UCP are pretextual. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fezard v. United Cerebral Palsy etc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a former police officer, appealed his conviction for charges stemming from allegations that he distributed marijuana to a confidential informant (CI). The court rejected defendant's Brady v. Maryland claim that the government had a duty to disclose a detective's misconduct prior to the detective's testimony at defendant's trial. The court concluded that, when the evidence at issue is misconduct by a government witness, and that misconduct is unrelated to the investigation or prosecution of the defendant, is known only to the witness himself, and could not have been discovered by the prosecutor through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the court is reluctant to conclude that such evidence should be imputed to the prosecutor. The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that the alleged Brady evidence was material where the detective was not the only officer to testify about the controlled drug buy that resulted in defendant’s marijuana-distribution conviction. Because the marijuana-distribution conviction was not obtained in violation of Brady, the court rejected defendant's argument that the government’s introduction of that conviction at his second trial entitles him to a new trial on the false-statement charge. Likewise, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the marijuana-distribution conviction. The court further concluded that the district court’s impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to recuse; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and, in regard to the false-statement count, defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a presumption of vindictiveness, and so the district court did not commit plain error in rejecting defendant’s claim for relief on that ground. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Nicaragua, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of asylum, denial of withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he should not be returned to Nicaragua because his brother was brutally murdered by local police and returning to Nicaragua would place him in grave danger from persecution by those responsible for his brother's death. The court concluded that petitioner's fear of persecution is speculative, even if he increased his public accusation of the police, and that petitioner's evidence of Nicaraguan human-rights practices do not compel a contrary conclusion. Further, the BIA properly rejected petitioner's claims for withholding of removal and withholding under the CAT because petitioner failed to satisfy the legal requirements of asylum and has presented no alternative factual basis for relief under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Castillo-Gutierrez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to harboring, encouraging, and inducing an alien to reside in the United States, and conspiracy to transport, harbor, and encourage and induce aliens to reside in the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged his 33 month sentence. The court concluded that the Government's pursuit of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice did not violate the plea agreement; the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory sentencing guidelines range where the district court found that defendant lied to an agent and encouraged a witness to corroborate his lie; and, having found that defendant obstructed justice, the district court did not clearly err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Manzano-Huerta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TNI, alleging that TNI discriminated against her on the basis of race, terminated her in retaliation for her complaints, and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681. Plaintiff also filed suit against a fellow truck driver, James Paris, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and in analyzing plaintiff's sexual harassment claim by not considering all that had occurred during the 34 hour rest period in Pharr, Texas; the record contains genuine issues of material fact about all that happened on the trip and whether plaintiff subjectively perceived Paris' actions as offensive; and the district court erred in finding that plaintiff did not report Paris' conduct to TNI in a timely manner. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's sex discrimination claims under Title VII and Arkansas' civil rights statute because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether plaintiff subjectively felt abused by Paris, that TNI was aware of his conduct, and that TNI failed to take appropriate action. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Nichols v. Tri-National Logistics, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of numerous firearms and subsequently appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), to 180 months in prison. The court concluded that defendant's prior Missouri second-degree burglary convictions fit within the generic definition of “burglary” for purposes of the ACCA and each constitutes a violent felony under section 924(e). The court also concluded that defendant's sentence enhancement under section 924(e) for crimes he committed as a juvenile does not violate the Eighth Amendment, and the district court did not err in enhancing the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Defendants Levon and Jamal Dean appealed their convictions for armed robberies of drug dealers in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and related counts. The court concluded that, under the court's precedent, because the Deans robbed drug dealers, the offense arises under the Hobbs Act so long as there is any evidence regarding the interstate character of the drug dealing; in this case, because the transactions at issue took place in the Sioux City area, a metropolitan area reasonably encompassing three different states, the interstate nexus requirement was easily met; there was sufficient evidence to prove a single conspiracy; even if there was a variance, such a variance was harmless error because it did not infringe on Jamal's substantial rights; there was sufficient evidence to convict Jamal of carjacking; there was sufficient evidence to convict Levon of possessing and aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm; Jamal's lack of success on the merits of the multiple- versus single-conspiracy claim precludes him from prevailing on his claim that the district court erred in refusing to give his "multiple conspiracies" jury instruction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. Finally, the court concluded that defendants' sentences are substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Dean, Jr." on Justia Law