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

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The firearm at issue was discovered during a stop and frisk. The court concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances present in this record, the district court did not err in concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop and frisk and therefore denying defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, the officer reasonably suspected defendant had stolen a truck and the officer stopped defendant after observing them walk through the yard of a known drug house in a high-crime area where recent shootings had occurred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davison" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, contending that the ALJ failed to properly weigh certain medical opinions in the record. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in discussing, reviewing or giving less weight to plaintiff's primary treating psychiatrist's opinion. In this case, the ALJ noted that the psychiatrist's opinion was inconsistent with the totality of the medical evidence and not supported by petitioner’s demonstrated level of functioning. Further, the court concluded that the ALJ properly explained her reasons for giving little weight to the “other” medical sources, and the ALJ did not err in finding the totality of the medical evidence and plaintiff's demonstrated level of functioning were inconsistent with these “other” medical sources’ opinions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lawson v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican native and citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish the continuous presence requirement and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. In this case, petitioner's absence from the United States for a total of 182 days exceeded the 180 day statutory limit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Torres-Balderas v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Great West filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that National is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify an owner-operator of a semi-tractor in a pending state court suit. The court concluded that the owner-operator was an "insured" under the National policy; neither two exclusions in the National policy applied; and the exclusion in the Great West policy's applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Great West, because the underlying negligence claim against the owner-operator was covered under National's policy and excluded under Great West's policy. View "Great West Cas. Co. v. National Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Linn State's Board of Regents adopted a mandatory drug screening policy. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the drug screening policy. In Barrett v. Claycomb, a panel of this court reviewed an interlocutory appeal, discussing, and ultimately reversing, the grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs on their facial challenge to the drug testing policy. On remand, plaintiffs clarified their claims to assert an as-applied challenge to the very same policy. The district court, in part, permanently enjoined Linn State from conducting any further collection, testing, or reporting. On appeal, Linn State challenged the district court's grant of a permanent injunction and subsequent grant of attorneys' fees in favor of plaintiffs. The court concluded that, on balance, testing the entire student population entering Linn State is reasonable and hence constitutional and an effective means of addressing Linn State's interest in providing "a safe, healthy, and productive environment for everyone who learns and works at LSTC by detecting, preventing, and deterring drug use and abuse among students." Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the case. View "Kittle-Aikeley v. Claycomb" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to bank robbery and was sentenced to life in prison under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c) based on a prior court-martial conviction. The court held that defendant's conviction by general court-martial is a conviction in “a court of the United States” within 18 U.S.C. 3559(c) and therefore, defendant is subject to a mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c). View "United States v. Shaffer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) where the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled because he could perform sedentary work. The court concluded that the ALJ correctly gave less weight to the nurse practitioner's medical opinion where it was inconsistent with other opinions from plaintiff's treating physicians. Further, the ALJ did not err by failing to obtain vocational expert testimony and instead relying solely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Crawford v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB). The court concluded that there is no proof that the ALJ did not consider the nurse practitioner's opinion as an "other" medical source; the ALJ rightly disregarded the nurse practitioner's opinion that plaintiff was unable to work because that involves an issue reserved for the Commissioner and is not the type of "medical opinion" to which the Commissioner gives controlling weight; and the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's residual functioning capacity (RFC) that she could perform the standing and walking requirements of light work is supported by substantial evidence. Further, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to not include additional manipulative limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order upholding the denial of SSI and DIB benefits. View "Cypress v. Colvin" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a copyright dispute over the 2012 motion picture "Killer Joe." Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for copyright infringement and defendant counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment. The district court dismissed the suit, dismissed the counterclaim as moot, and denied defendant's requests for attorney’s fees and to make a record. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant attorney fees because plaintiff may properly sue "John Doe" to ascertain an ISP subscriber and because plaintiff promptly dismissed its lawsuit once it learned defendant was not the infringer and thus had proper motives to sue the subscriber. Further, defendant cites to no authority that a party’s financial status affects whether attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 505, should be awarded. Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to fail explicitly to consider the factor of financial status. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Killer Joe Nevada v. Leaverton" on Justia Law

Petitioner moved for authorization to file a successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, seeking to present a new claim based on Johnson v. United States. The court concluded that circuit precedent requires the court to grant petitioner's motion. Woods v. United States concluded that solely because the government conceded that a motion for authorization based on Johnson should be granted, the movant made a prima facie showing under section 2255(h)(2). The court emphasized, however, that after the motion is filed, the district court “must not defer” to this court’s “preliminary determination” in granting authorization. The government’s position is not conclusive, and “the district court must dismiss the motion that [this court has] allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion.” View "Menteer v. United States" on Justia Law