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

Defendant plead guilty to a drug-related charge after the vehicle in which he was a passenger was stopped by the state police and an inventory search revealed a kilogram of cocaine inside the air filter box in the engine compartment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, as well as his sentence. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress the cocaine and his post arrest statements to the police where nothing in the record supports defendant's contention that the inventory search was pretextual. The officer's testimony supports a finding that it was standard department procedure for searching an engine compartment to open the air filter box. Further, the officer did not act in bad faith and the search of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) after finding that defendant "was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Ball" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the executrix of her husband's estate, along with her husband's former business, Federal City, filed suit against Life Investors for conversion and tortious interference with a contract. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court concluded that this action is not barred by claim preclusion because the claims brought are not based upon the same cause of action as the prior suit. In this case, plaintiffs allege claims for conversion and tortious interference with contract against Life Investors because Life Investors removed over $400,000 from certain accounts to cover expenses above the alleged debt plaintiffs owed Life Investors. Life Investors removed these funds after the decision in the Maryland district court. The Maryland court never determined that plaintiffs lacked any interest in the assets in the accounts. Instead, it decided that plaintiffs were time-barred from bringing claims from a 2000 request for withdrawal of the assets and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., claims were either time-barred or failed to allege a violation of ERISA law. Similarly, the claim is not barred by issue preclusion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Corrado v. Life Investors Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Life Investors filed suit against defendants, alleging breach of a settlement agreement that required defendants to repay advances of monies defendants received from Life Investors. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Life Investors. The court affirmed, concluding that defendants' laches defense failed because they cannot show unreasonable delay on the part of Life Investors in bringing this suit nor can defendants show that they were prejudiced; even if the alleged inconsistencies were material, defendants chose not to investigate further and thus the determination that they ratified the Settlement Agreement was correct; the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the question of ratification of the Settlement Agreement after certifying that question to the Iowa Supreme Court and receiving its answer; and defendants' attempt to argue an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., violation as a defense in this action is barred as a matter of issue preclusion. View "Life Investors Ins. Co. v. Federal City Region" on Justia Law

During a search, Garcia-Hernandez told the agents they would find five firearms at his apartment—a .38, .45, .22, and two rifles. Searching his one-bedroom apartment, the agents found two firearms—a .38 and a .22 rifle—and ammunition. The .22 was in the bedroom closet with his clothes, shoes, and other personal belongings. The .22’s serial number was visibly scratched out and unreadable. Several rounds of .22 ammunition were in a dresser beside the bed. Also in the closet were other ammunition of various types and calibers. In the dining area was a backpack with three more firearms. Garcia-Hernandez stipulated to a previous felony conviction that prohibited him from possessing a firearm or ammunition. The jury convicted under of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) and sections 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the jury should have been instructed to find he knew the firearm and ammunition were in or affecting interstate commerce and that that the government failed to present sufficient evidence he knew the serial number on the .22 rifle had been obliterated.. View "United States v. Garcia-Hernandez" on Justia Law

In 2011, Singh entered the U.S. through Texas, without a valid entry document, violating 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Singh is a Sikh and a member of the Shirmoani Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann Party). Detained by DHS, Singh asserted he feared persecution by the rival India Congress Party if returned to India. Singh stated that members of the Congress Party had twice beaten him for refusing to switch parties. The officer found Singh had “a credible fear of persecution” and referred Singh’s application for further consideration. Singh applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. An IJ continued Singh’s removal hearing to permit Singh to obtain new counsel. Singh’s retained counsel did not attend the rescheduled hearing, instead sending an unprepared associate. The IJ chastised counsel, but granted another continuance. At the rescheduled hearing Singh testified through an interpreter and provided documents to support his request for asylum. The IJ denied Singh’s application, finding Singh “not credible” because his testimony contradicted information he gave at his interview; he was evasive during cross-examination. The IJ alternatively found that, even if credible, Singh’s accounts of minor beatings and short detentions did “not rise to the level of persecution.” The BIA affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied relief, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance. View "Singh v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Muiruri, a native of Kenya, overstayed his student visa. Immigration officials apprehended him. In a sworn statement, Muiruri admitted to falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with two counts of removability: overstaying his visa, INA 237(a)(1)(C)(I), and falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen, INA 237(a)(3)(D). He applied for adjustment-of-status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. A month before his removal hearing, Muiruri filed a “Motion to Suppress,” arguing he had been illegally searched and seized, and his sworn statement coerced, and a lack of sufficient evidence for the false-representation charge. Two weeks later, the government submitted “to be considered by the Immigration Court at [Muiruri’s] hearing” I-9 forms and an employment application. In each, Muiruri checked the box indicating U.S. citizenship. A week before the removal hearing the immigration judge denied the Motion to Suppress and found a violation of INA 237(a)(3)(D). The BIA affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review, View "Muiruri v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Remington manufactured O’Neal’s Model 700 .243 caliber bolt-action rifle in 1971, using the “Walker trigger.” As early as 1979, Remington knew that the Walker trigger can cause the rifles to fire a round when the safety lever is released to the fire position, without the trigger being pulled, because of the manner in which components of the trigger mechanism interact. Remington estimated that at least 20,000 rifles would inadvertently fire merely by releasing the safety, but decided against a recall. O'Neal, deer hunting with friends, loaned his Remington Model 700 to Ritter. The hunters were traveling in a pickup truck when they spotted a deer. After the pickup stopped, Ritter began to exit the truck and moved the safety lever on the rifle to the fire position without pulling the trigger. The rifle discharged. The cartridge traveled through the pickup seat and hit O’Neal, who eventually died from the gunshot. The gun had had three owners; it had been loaned out several times. In a suit by O’Neal’s widow, the court granted Remington summary judgment on grounds that O'Neal could not show whether the alleged defect existed at the time of manufacture or resulted from subsequent modification. The Eighth Circuit reversed: South Dakota law permits a plaintiff to prove a product defect through circumstantial evidence. O'Neal presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to show the alleged defect was present at the time of manufacture and did not result from an alteration. View "O'Neal v. Remington Arms Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Army hired URS to destroy munitions at a facility in Arkansas. Smith, a black male, was hired by URS as a full-time temporary instructor/trainer for employees on the Arkansas project. Within months URS hired another black male and a white male (Griffin) for training positions; there were already four individual with various credentials in training positions. Smith alleges that the white man was paid more for essentially the same work and was given a favorable ranking in deciding which trainers should be terminated first, notwithstanding the fact that Griffin had a disciplinary report in his personnel files, for distributing purportedly obscene material in a class. Smith and testified that Griffin had openly conducted a side-business of selling health drinks from his office space at URS on company time without being disciplined. After being terminated during a reduction in forces, Smith sued, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of URS, noting “evidence of dissembling” that a jury could rely upon to discount URS's claimed rationales for its actions. View "Smith v. URS Corp." on Justia Law

Loren Cook manufactures air circulating equipment, using lathes to form and mold metal discs. Lathes operate by holding heavily lubricated pieces of metal that rotate rapidly, allowing the lathe operator to apply tools to shape the metal into individual workpieces. In 2009, a Loren Cook lathe operator was killed when a 12-pound rotating metal workpiece broke free from the lathe, flew out of his machine at 50-70 mph, and struck him in the head, then traveled along the floor at least another 20 feet before crashing into metal shelving. The Department of Labor issued two citations, finding seven violations of 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to employ barrier guards to protect workers from ejected workpieces, resulting in a total fine of $490,000. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission adopted an ALJ’s decision vacated the fine. The Eighth Circuit initially reversed, but on rehearing en banc, affirmed the Commission’s order, agreeing that section 1910.212(a)(1) focuses on point-of-contact risks and risks associated with routine operation of lathes, such as flakes and sparks, but does not contemplate the catastrophic failure of a lathe that would result in a workpiece being thrown out of the lathe. View "Perez v. Loren Cook Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sell technology that permits computers to identify license-plate numbers in digital photographs taken by cameras mounted on vehicles. The cameras automatically photograph everything the vehicles encounter, with GPS coordinates; software provides notice if a photographed vehicle is subject to repossession. The information is sold to clients, including automobile finance and insurance companies and law enforcement. Arkansas’s Automatic License Plate Reader System Act prohibits use of automatic license plate reader systems and permits any person claiming harm from a violation to seek damages from the violator. Vigilant and its affiliates sued, arguing that “use of [automatic license plate reader] systems to collect and create information” and dissemination of the information constitutes speech and that the Act impermissibly restricts this speech based on content—license-plate data—and on the identity of the speaker, because it exempts some entities, such as law enforcement agencies. The district court dismissed, ruling that state officials were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing, so there is no Article III case or controversy. State officials do not have authority to enforce the Act, so they do not cause injury; the Act provides for enforcement only through private actions for damages. View "Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law