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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants four years after a jury acquitted him of murder, alleging that defendants conspired to frame him for the crime. In this case, Arkansas provides a three year statute of limitations for state malicious prosecution claims. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants because plaintiff's suit was time-barred where he failed to file his complaint within the applicable three year time period. Further, plaintiff failed to establish equitable tolling.View "Jones v. Frost" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendants' motions to suppress evidence seized during a search of a vehicle. The court concluded that the government did not waive its Arkansas Code Section 27-51-302 argument where the government asserted Section 302 as a basis for the traffic stop in its initial briefs in opposition to the motions to suppress. If defendants can show that they actually suffered prejudice as a result of the government's misstatement at the hearing and that the misstatement prevented them from fully responding to the government's Section 302 argument, then they may file on remand a motion to reopen the suppression hearing or supplement the record with additional arguments or evidence, if any additional evidence exists, to rebut the government's Section 302 theory. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "United States v. Demilia" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for numerous federal offenses stemming from his involvement in controlled buys of various controlled substances. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a 2012 warrant search of his apartment; the court need not decide whether the dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment because suppression of the evidence seized during the warrant search is foreclosed by United States v. Davis, which held that evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule; the court rejected defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct during examination of government witnesses and closing argument; defendant's contention that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury pursuant to Alleyne v. United States was foreclosed by the court's prior decisions; in United States v. Alvarez, the court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, and therefore district courts may continue to impose career offender enhancements without having a jury determine the fact of prior convictions; in United States v. Abrahamson, the court upheld a post-Alleyne challenge to an enhanced mandatory minimum statutory sentence, where Alleyne left intact the rule that enhancements based on the fact of a prior conviction are an exception to the general rule that facts increasing the prescribed range of penalties must be presented to a jury; and the court denied pending pro se motions.View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's ruling denying her request for discharge of her student loan obligations to ECMC based on undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court made detailed findings to support its decision that debtor's evidence was insufficient to substantiate a disability that would qualify as undue hardship. The bankruptcy court determined that the evidence regarding debtor and her family's alleged medical conditions concerning allergies related to mold and toxic mold exposure was insufficient to show that any of them suffered from a disability. Further, the bankruptcy court properly found and considered debtor's income limitations, future employment, and Income Contingent Repayment Plan as part of the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the judgment.View "Nielsen v. ACS, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude - making terroristic threats under Minnesota law. The BIA ruled that petitioner's offense of uttering terroristic threats in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror involves the reprehensible conduct of terrorizing another person with a culpable mental state, and is a turpitudinous offense. Consequently, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied his petition for review on this issue. The court also denied the petition for review based on the BIA's denial of his request for a remand to the immigration judge to consider whether he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his fear of gang violence and gang recruitment in El Salvador. The BIA's determination does not present a question of law or a constitutional claim over which the court has jurisdiction.View "Avendano v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Steve Conway appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) dismissal of his appeal from an adverse ruling of the bankruptcy court. The court concluded that Conway, who has not claimed to be a licensed attorney, cannot relitigate on behalf of LorCon, his company, and Conway has no standing in this bankruptcy appeal to litigate his derivative interest in LorCon's claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the motions to supplement the record. The court granted the motion to strike.View "Conway v. Heyl" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Heinkel and Pepperl in Iowa state court, seeking damages based on a products-liability theory. On appeal, Heinkel and Pepperl challenged the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice and the district court's failure to condition the dismissal on the payment of fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice where the grant of voluntary dismissal did not result in a waste of judicial time and effort because the case had not progressed very far. Further, in these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the voluntary dismissal without awarding fees and costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Mullen v. Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for receipt of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; defendant's 210-month sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense and does not violate the Eighth Amendment considering defendant's possession of 171 videos and 852 images containing child pornography, some depicting minors in a violent, sadistic, or masochistic nature; defendant is not entitled to a 2-level reduction in his offense under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(1) where defendant's conduct could not have been "limited to the receipt of solicitation of" child pornography; and the district court did not err by applying a 2-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 where the district court found that defendant testified falsely and willfully under oath. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Shelabarger" on Justia Law

After defendant's fourth period of supervises release was revoked, he appealed the sentence imposed by the district court arguing that the district court erred by sentencing him on conduct not included in the written violation report he received prior to his revocation hearing. The court concluded that, although defendant had the right to written notice under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(A), without a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right, he simply forfeited it. Under plain error review, even if defendant had not received written notice, he was not prejudiced. Consequently, the court denied defendant's request to remand for resentencing. Further, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable given the frequency of the violations, defendant's lack of attention to the conditions of release, and the failure of lesser sentences to deter him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case arose after the City of Redfield and Quam entered into a construction contract and issues arose regarding the subsurface ground conditions. On appeal, Quam challenged the district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration for contract disputes between Quam and the City. The court concluded that the district court properly found that no agreement to arbitrate was made between the parties and, therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Quam's motion to compel.View "Quam Construction Co., Inc. v. City of Redfield" on Justia Law