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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possessing with intent to distribute at least five grams of methamphetamine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of this drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the district court did not procedurally err by applying a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 where defendant absconded from the drug treatment facility in violation of his pretrial release conditions and where he failed to appear at his court ordered change-of-plea hearing. The court also concluded that the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in sentencing defendant to the 100 months of prison he received for the possession charge and the court fairly reasoned that there was a substantial risk that defendant would commit additional crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Ray" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Caucasian male, filed suit after being terminated from the AHTD, alleging race and gender discrimination and violations of various statutory and constitutional rights. Because plaintiff has not provided analysis or development of his briefs, he has waived some of his claims. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend because amendment would be futile; plaintiff failed to present direct evidence of discrimination where, at most, plaintiff's evidence showed discord with his female subordinates, not that any discriminatory animus motivated his termination by the decisionmakers; and, under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, plaintiff's claims of race and gender discrimination fail where, even if plaintiff made a prima facie showing, AHTD offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for his termination - his violation of the sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Moody v. Vozel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three ex-fire chiefs, appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment on their procedural due process claims challenging their terminations. The court concluded that plaintiffs, at-will employees pursuant to Missouri law, were terminable at the will of their employer and they had not property interest in their continued employment under the Fourth Amendment; there was no stigma sufficient to deprive plaintiffs of a liberty interest; and plaintiffs' individual capacity claims allege no constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Crews v. Monarch Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's order of removal. Petitioner was charged with speeding and driving without a valid drivers license in violation of South Dakota law. Petitioner subsequently admitted to an ICE agent his true name, that he was a Mexican citizen with unlawful status in the United States, and that he had purchased two false identification cards. The court concluded that the record does not support petitioner's argument that the arresting officer committed an egregious violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him solely because of his race; the IJ did not violate petitioner's due process rights by admitting the officer's affidavit or by limiting his ability to cross examine the officer who prepared Form I-213; and, even if the IJ had drawn an adverse inference against petitioner or compelled him to testify against his Fifth Amendment rights, Form I-213 independently established his removability. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Chavez-Castillo v. Holder" on Justia Law

After Hot Stuff recalled mislabeled sandwiches containing MSG, Hot Stuff sought indemnification from HCC for losses sustained due to the recall. HCC denied coverage on the ground that the claim did not involve an "Accidental Product Contamination" as defined by the policy. The district court granted Hot Stuff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court disagreed with the district court's interpretation of the policy term "may likely result." The court concluded that whether the consumption of the mislabeled sandwiches "may likely result" in physical symptoms of sickness or disease is a genuine dispute of material fact that cannot be answered by a summary judgment record that consists of inconclusive government reports and scientific studies and the dueling opinions of experts far removed from the relevant marketplace. Unless the district court determines on remand that summary judgment is appropriate based on the full trial record, the coverage question must be submitted to the jury. However, as the damages issues appear to be distinct and separable from the question of coverage, damages need not be retried. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err when it denied HCC's motion for judgment as a matter of law in regards to the loss gross profit award, and the district court did not clearly err in denying an award of attorney's fees. View "Hot Stuff Foods, LLC v. Houston Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a)(2)(B), and appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that, while doubting the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. 16913 under the Commerce Clause alone, the enabling necessary and proper clause reveals the statute is constitutionally authorized where the registration requirements of section 16913 are part of the constitutional power Congress has to punish sex offenders who cross state lines. The registration requirement of SORNA is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause and defendant has not clearly demonstrated the lack of constitutional authority for Congress to enact section 16913(a). The court also concluded that even if section 2250(a)(2)(B) were distinguishable from Gonzales v. Raich, and thus not constitutional under the third prong of United States v. Lopez, SORNA would still remain valid under the first two interstate commerce jurisdictional prongs. The enforcement of the registration requirement is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause, and defendant has not clearly demonstrated the lack of constitutional authority for Congress to enact section 2250(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendants, three federal inmates, pled guilty to assaulting "persons assisting federal officers" under 18 U.S.C. 111 after they assaulted two state correctional officers at the county jail, a facility which has a contract with the U.S. Marshals Service. The court concluded that under the circumstances here, the officers were performing a federal function based on a contract with a federal agency. Therefore, the district court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss because the officers qualified as persons assisting federal officers under section 111. Further, given Defendant Robinson's criminal record and the seriousness of his assault on the two state correctional officers, he has failed to establish a reasonable probability that he would have received a lighter sentence if the district court had considered the mitigation evidence Robinson alleges the court ignored. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Luedtke" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty and subsequently appealed the denial of a motion to suppress a firearm found in the pouch of a vehicle where defendant was a passenger. The police were responding to a reported drive-by shooting when they stopped the car near the scene. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the car and investigate its occupants. Further, the district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement for the use of the firearm in connection with another offense under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Walker, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for bank robbery, arguing that the district court committed constitutional error by allowing the jury to view a replay of video exhibits outside the presence of defendant and without notifying defense counsel. The court concluded that, even if the district court abused its discretion by replaying the videos without notifying defendant and his counsel, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the district court was present during the replay and the transcript shows no prejudicial dialogue. Further, the overwhelming evidence showed defendant committed the robbery and, although defendant was present, he did not object during trial when the videos were admitted into evidence and played to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Stratasys, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a). Section 207(a) requires certain employees be paid overtime wages for working more than forty hours a week. Plaintiff, employed as a Field Service Engineer, sought damages based on his approximation that he worked 60 hours per week every week of his employment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Stratasys where plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence to show that he worked more than forty hours a week. View "Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc." on Justia Law