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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant objected to the inclusion of five convictions from municipal court in his presentencing report on the basis that they were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The district court found that it was the practice and policy of the municipal court to advise all individuals of their right to an attorney and it was long-established law at the time of defendant's convictions that there is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel for municipal convictions that result in jail time. Under the presumption of regularity and without affirmative evidence from defendant to rebut this presumption, it was permissible for the district court to conclude that defendant failed to meet his burden of proving his prior convictions were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Coppage" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., against his employer after he retired. The court concluded that plaintiff's age-based hostile work environment claim failed because the supervisor's age-related comments were not so severe as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his employment; without more than plaintiff's speculation, a reasonable juror could not find the supervisor's actions - although contemptible - amounted to harassment based on sex; plaintiff has not shown sufficient facts to infer a hostile work environment and he cannot prove constructive discharge; and plaintiff has not suffered an adverse employment action and cannot establish a claim for either disparate treatment or retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Rickard v. Swedish Match North America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Pliva, manufacturer of the prescription medication metoclopramide, alleging that the medication caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia. On appeal, plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her claims. The court concluded that the prescribing physicians' exclusive reliance on information from the brand-name manufacturers broke any causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate the 2004 label change and the plaintiffs' injuries; to the extent plaintiff alleges failure to warn claims against Pliva based on the allegedly inadequate content or manner of delivery of the 2004 warnings, her claims are squarely preempted by federal law; because plaintiff failed to explain how Pliva could avoid liability under Missouri law for the alleged design defects without changing its product, changing its labeling, or leaving the market, plaintiff's design defect claims - whether sounding in strict liability or negligence - are preempted by impossibility; and federal law preempts plaintiff's implied warranty claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brinkley v. Pliva, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to mail fraud and defendant appealed the district court's restitution order. Defendant had defrauded his employer of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the company terminated his employment, canceling his stock options. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's request to offset the options against his mandatory restitution obligation. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in calculating the loss amount because it had not subtracted from the restitution award an amount he had not been reimbursed because this claim was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Allison" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his probation officer violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him to satisfy the terms of a court probation order directing him to complete a privately run substance abuse treatment program (ARCH). Plaintiff alleged that the program prohibited him from practicing his faith as a Jehovah's Witness. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that quasi judicial absolute immunity applied to the officer because he was carrying out a court order. View "Rose v. Flairty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for social security disability insurance (SSDI). Plaintiff alleged that the ALJ erred by failing to order an intelligence quotient (IQ) test, evaluating plaintiff's intellectual capacity, and accepting a vocational expert's assessment. Without an essential IQ test, the ALJ could not make an informed choice about whether plaintiff's mild mental retardation met listing 12.05C. The court concluded that plaintiff must be afforded an IQ test and a reevaluation of his disability applications. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to further develop the record. View "Lott, Jr. v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a custodian for the school district, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law against the district after plaintiff's wife spoke at a public school board meeting. Plaintiff's wife was speaking as a member of the public, suggesting that the school board should consider sharing a superintendent and eliminating a principal. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the evidence did not establish any genuine dispute of material fact or sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff's association with his wife was a substantial or motivating factor in his alleged constructive discharge; the district's proffered reasons for plaintiff's reassignment was pretext; or the requisite personal motive necessary for a tortious interference with a contract. View "Skalsky v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 743" on Justia Law

GE Capital appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion for allowance of an administrative expense claim for unpaid lease obligations against debtor. The court concluded that the written record supports GE Capital's request that its motion be considered under 11 U.S.C. 365. The court also concluded that, by declining to consider GE Capital's motion under section 365(d)(5), the bankruptcy court shifted the burden of proof from the objecting party to the claimant, which is erroneous as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "GE Capital Commercial, Inc. v. Sylva Corp., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2). The court concluded that the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Fourth Amendment where the officer had an articulable and objectively reasonable suspicion that a motorist without a valid license was driving the vehicle; the duration and scope of the traffic stop were reasonable where, once the officer saw the muriatic acid and airline tubing in the vehicle, he had the reasonable suspicion necessary to expand the scope of the traffic stop and make further inquiry to determine whether the items had been purchased for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine; it was reasonable to walk a drug detection dog around the vehicle; the protective pat-down search was lawful where the officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved with drug manufacturing; and the dog's alert on the vehicle was sufficient to establish probable cause that defendant himself possessed, or had possessed, illegal drugs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chartier" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). Further, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court reviewed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law