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

Plaintiffs, six homecare providers, filed suit challenging Minnesota's Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation Act, Minn. Stat. 179A.54, 179A.06. The Act allows homecare providers for Medicaid program participants to unionize. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claim because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 152, does not preempt Minnesota's regulation of domestic service workers; plaintiffs' state preemption argument against the SEIU failed because even if the state laws conflict irreconcilably, the law passed most recently by the legislature controls and thus the Act trumps the older statute's definition of "employees;" the district court properly dismissed the providers' tortious interference claim against the state defendants because federal courts are unable to order state officials to conform their conduct to state law; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Contract Clause claims where plaintiffs did not have authority to negotiate compensation or benefits terms with program participants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Greene v. Dayton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing PCP and marijuana. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for a subpoena ad testificandum and a subpoena duces tecum. Because the government has not shown that petitioner clearly and unambiguously waived his right to bring this appeal, the court proceeded to the merits. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a subpoena ad testificandum under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 17 because petitioner failed to explain what additional information his father would have provided. In regards to the subpoena duces tecum, the court concluded that petitioner failed to show that a subpoena was warranted where petitioner's request was a "mere hope" that it will turn up favorable evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bradford" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, challenging the Parole Commission's denial of early release under 18 U.S.C. 4206(d). Pursuant to Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, courts may not review the Commission’s actual substantive decisions; rather, review is limited to whether the Board acted within the constraints of its statutory and constitutional authority. The court concluded that the Commission's broad inquiry did not involve the impermissible consideration of matters outside the scope of the Commission's authority; the Commission was free to assess petitioner's acceptance of responsibility based on the ample record and to consider his prior, similar uncharged conduct as evidence relevant to his risk of recidivism; and the Commission did not commit a plain violation of a matter which does not admit of discretion and choice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Green v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order overruling her objection to the chapter 7 trustee's final report and denying her motion to compel the chapter 7 trustee to abandon $16,893.44 he had received from the Ruth E. Thompson Revocable Trust. The court agreed with the bankruptcy court that pursuant to paragraph 5.3.4 of the trust agreement, debtor's interest in the Trust was fully alienable by her on the petition date, and her interest in the Trust was not excluded from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 541(c)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order. View "Thompson-Rossbach v. Doeling" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought review of the the USCIS revocation of an I-140 petition and denial of his I-485 adjustment-of-status application. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether USCIS failed to comply with disclosure requirements under regulation 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16). The court also found that plaintiff is not statutorily eligible to adjust status where plaintiff could not port his I-140 because the I-140 was not valid to begin with: USCIS found numerous petition deficiencies in its investigation fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal. View "Rajasekaran v. Hazuda" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment allowing Northwestern to rescind a disability insurance policy. The court concluded that Northwestern’s evidence is insufficient to show that it is entitled to summary judgment because the evidence does not address the specific insurance policy at issue in this case. The court concluded that the issue is whether, after the policy went into effect, the failure to cancel the policy increased the risk at the time of the loss, i.e., when plaintiff became disabled and made a claim for benefits. Even if a general aversion to over-insurance is sufficient to prove that plaintiff's breach of his promise to cancel the Great-West policy increased the risk to Northwestern, it does not address whether his breach increased the risk at the time of loss. As to Northwestern's alternative argument, the court concluded that there appears to remain a factual dispute concerning whether plaintiff knew or should have known that the representation at issue was false or was made with intent to deceive. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Weiher" on Justia Law

Defendant, a debt collector, was convicted of eleven counts of bank fraud, nine counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, ten counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of impersonating a federal officer or employee. The court concluded that the district court did not err by finding that the total loss amount was $711,965.82; the district court did not clearly err in calculating the intended loss; the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for violation of an administrative order under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1cmt. n. 8; and the district court did not err in applying the vulnerable victim enhancement. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 175 month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jokhoo" on Justia Law

Creditor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion to dismiss debtor's bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court ruled that the Bankruptcy Code merely requires the debtor to establish that she had received a briefing regarding credit counseling in compliance with 11 U.S.C. 109(h)(1). The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court properly found that the certificate of counseling was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements and denied creditor's contention to the contrary because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of law. The panel lacked jurisdiction related to creditor's appeal of an order granting debtor's motion to sell certain real property and the panel declined to address creditor's remaining issues because they were not presented to the bankruptcy court in the first instance or are unrelated to the issue on appeal. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the judgment. View "Curtis v. Segraves" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to retaliating against a witness and subsequently appealed his sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. The court concluded that, although defendant's 24-month sentence was greater than the advisory Guidelines range and the sentence he proposed, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. In this case, the district court gave appropriate consideration to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and explained that the upward variance was based on the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law, to provide for just punishment, and to afford deterrence. Because the district court acted well within its discretion in sentencing defendant, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boelter" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug offenses and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion seeking a psychological examination and competency hearing. The court found no abuse of the district court's discretion because there was no reasonable cause to believe that defendant was incompetent. In this case, the medical reports indicated physical injury including a brain injury that resulted in "mild cognitive impairment," but the medical reports provided no indication that defendant was incapable of understanding the nature or consequences of the legal proceedings. Further, defendant's extensive participation at his hearings showed he understood the nature and consequences of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dahl" on Justia Law