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

Defendants Adejumo, Okeayainneh, and Adeniran were convicted of various charges related to their involvement in a scheme using stolen identity information to create counterfeit identifications for use in committing bank fraud. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the third superseding indictment where the factors relied upon by the district court in making its ends-of-justice determination were proper; while a court generally should make the findings required by 18 U.S.C. (h)(8)(A) at the time it grants the continuance, the Speedy Trial Act does not require the court to make a contemporaneous record. The court also concluded that the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to support Okeayainneh's conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud; when, as here, the government's evidence of a defendant's guilt is so overwhelming, any error related to the admission of a summary chart is harmless; the district court did not err in admitting the statements Okeayainneh made during a proffer session at trial; without any evidence to support the finding that the false statements substantially obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense, it was clear error to impose a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice; and the court rejected Okeayainneh's remaining claims of error in regards to his sentence. After addressing the remaining claims of error alleged by Adeniran and Adejumo, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "United States v. Adejumo" on Justia Law

When debtor filed for bankruptcy, he was living in rental property owned by creditors. Creditors violated an automatic stay and evicted debtor. On appeal, creditors challenged the bankruptcy court's finding that they had willfully violated the automatic stay, and bankruptcy court's award of actual and punitive damages. The court concluded that creditors waived any right they may have had under 11 U.S.C. 362(e); creditors are barred from judicial estoppel from claiming that the stay had expired under section 362(e); the bankruptcy court's findings that creditors willfully violated the automatic stay and of actual damages are not clearly erroneous; but the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding punitive damages where the bankruptcy court did not make specific findings of fact as to motive and egregious conduct in violating the stay and a creditor's failure to appear at trial does not satisfy the Eighth Circuit test of egregious, intentional, misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Bugg v. Gray" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory sentencing guidelines range where his conviction for assault while displaying a dangerous weapon under Iowa Code 708.1(3) categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(1). Consequently, the district court did not err in determining defendant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2). Further, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and heard extensive arguments from defendant's counsel from each of these factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Maid" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the trustee of Cody Laganiere's estate, filed suit against ADC and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after Cody was found dead in his cell from a methadone overdose. Plaintiff alleged that defendants deliberately disregarded Laganiere's medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, concluding that there was no evidence that defendants knew Laganiere suffered serious side effects from methadone but deliberately disregarded the issue; the supervisor did not fail to train the detention deputy; and because plaintiff failed to show that any officer deliberately disregarded plaintiff's medical needs, ADC and the county are not liable. View "Laganiere v. The County of Olmsted" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered an Alford plea to two counts of drug conspiracy and possession. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court could not say, under the circumstances, that counsel's decision to recommend that petitioner enter an Alford plea on the fifty-gram conspiracy count was anything but a permissible strategic choice because counsel reasonably believed that a jury would have found petitioner guilty on that count.There is no constitutional deficiency in the performance of petitioner's trial counsel and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brooks v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States by submitting false applications for loan-deficiency payments and were ordered to pay restitution. The United States then filed suit against defendants under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, and the district court granted summary judgment for the United States, ordering defendants and their business to pay a penalty. Defendants appealed. The court rejected defendants' argument that their guilty pleas are not preclusive because no issues were actually litigated in the criminal proceeding because collateral estoppel applies equally whether the previous criminal conviction was based on a jury verdict or a plea of guilty, and defendant Slominski cites no authority that sentencing findings negate the preclusive effect of guilty pleas or admissions; the $1.3 million judgment is not punishment barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause where the Act is not so punitive that it is a criminal sanction; and the $1.3 million judgment is not an unconstitutionally excessive fine violating the Excessive Fines Clause where the monetary sanction here is not grossly disproportional. View "United States v. Aleff" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to child pornography and was sentenced as a repeat offender to a mandatory minimum of fifteen years imprisonment. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an administrative subpoena because defendant had no expectation of privacy in the subscriber information and a warrant was not necessary; neither federal nor Minnesota statutes warrant suppression; and the court rejected defendant's due process challenge to his sentence where the minimum sentence for receipt of child pornography is five years higher than the ten-year mandatory minimum 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2) imposes on the same offender for possession; and because knowing possession is not knowing receipt and each acts threatens distinct harms, the imposition of different mandatory minimums is not irrational. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wheelock" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's above-Guidelines sentence after he admitted to violating his supervised release. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have followed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 before accepting his admissions and imposing the sentence because Rule 11 does not apply to revocation hearings and it was not plain error for the district court to not follow those procedures; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court acted within its discretion in ordering 24 months' imprisonment; the district court noted that defendant had absconded and was not a good candidate for further supervised release; and the district court highlighted the seriousness of the original offense, the leniency of the original sentence, and the failure to pay restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iyarpeya" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for supplemental security income (SSI) where she alleged that she was disabled due to back pain, scoliosis, and other conditions. The court concluded that the Commissioner did not err in affording little weight to plaintiff's treating physician's opinion because it was inconsistent with the treatment records and the objective medical evidence as a whole, and was not supported by the physician's own physical examination of plaintiff and the objective test results. Therefore, the court concluded that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supported the Commissioner's decision that plaintiff was not disabled. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Cline v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegally possessing a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant to 180 months in prison, the mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that, by the plain language of the Iowa Code, defendant's terrorism conviction is a violent felony requiring the use of force, threat, or intimidation, and defendant's terrorism conviction is a violent felony under section 924(e)(2)(B)(I). Defendant's conviction of going armed with intent under Iowa Code section 708.8 is also a predicate violent felony where section 708.8 falls under the residual clause of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); there was no Sixth Amendment violation under Alleyne v. United States; because the challenged enhancement was based solely on defendant's prior felony drug conviction, it continues to fall under the recidivism exception to the jury presentation requirement; and the district court properly determined that defendant has four predicate offenses and is an armed career criminal for sentencing purposes. View "United States v. Langston" on Justia Law