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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Burma, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of her motion to remand and her later motion to reopen her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying petitioner's motions. In total, petitioner claimed that her additional evidence explains why she delayed reporting the sexual abuse that she suffered and supports her claim that she is a Burmese citizen. While these are two concerns that the IJ had about her credibility, the IJ found petitioner was not credible for several other reasons. The BIA concluded that the additional evidence presented would not have warranted overturning the IJ's credibility finding and, therefore, the BIA was within its discretion to issue the denials. The court denied the petitions for review.View "Lee v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the district court did not err in denying defendant her "buyer/seller" jury instruction where defendant's participation in the conspiracy spanned years, with multiple drug transactions and multiple customers; and the district court correctly instructed the jury on the drug quantity attributable to her where defendant jointly proposed the disputed instruction and never objected to it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Tillman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the conspiracy. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in suppressing wiretap evidence and rejected defendant's claim that the government did not need the wiretaps because it already had enough information to prosecute the members of the conspiracy. While there may have been enough evidence to prosecute some actors, there was not enough to effectively prosecute everyone involved. The wiretaps at issue were requested to shed light on the full scope of the crack conspiracy. The government's use of other investigative techniques failed to produce the necessary information regarding the extensive drug operation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Milliner" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after being convicted of drug conspiracy and possession charges. The district court found defendant ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) because she had been convicted, in 2008, under Iowa law for possession of drug paraphernalia and buying illegal amounts of pseudoephedrine. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant's buying conviction was not relevant conduct to her latest offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Schmitt" on Justia Law

Reggie A. Mathews, a third party, sought a hearing to determine his interest in $412,900.00 seized from the trunk of a car he was driving. On appeal, Mathews challenged the district court's dismissal of his petition for lack of standing under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(3). The court concluded that Mathews did not meet the statutory requirements where he does not explain the nature and extent or circumstances of his possession as required by section 853(n)(3). Therefore, Mathews' petition was statutorily insufficient and does not state a legal interest. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Matthews v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against OEF and Hugo under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq., and Nebraska law, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Plaintiffs Davis and Duncan also sued Joe Ricketts, the CEO of OEF and owner of Hugo, for tortious interference with their expectation of continued employment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Hugo and OEF because the court found that the undisputed facts in the record show that OEF and Hugo are not an integrated enterprise and because the court agreed with the district court that Ricketts, as CEO of OEF and acting on behalf of OEF, cannot be a third party interferer.View "Davis, et al. v. Ricketts, et al." on Justia Law

Movant, convicted of conspiring to distribute ecstacy, moved to vacate his 240-month sentence based on, inter alia, the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Movant argued that he is entitled to 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief where, applying King v. United States, he argued that his 2005 conviction for resisting arrest may not be counted as a career offender predicate offense because it was grouped with, and received the same sentence as, the non-predicate careless and imprudent driving offense and therefore did not receive a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2). On the merits of the career offender issue, the court agreed with the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the interplay between the criminal history provisions of section 4A1.2(a)(2) as incorporated by section 4B1.2. The court concluded that it was bound by the court's prior decision in King even though a majority of the panel believed it should now be overruled to eliminate a conflict with the Sixth Circuit. In regards to Movant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Movant failed to establish that appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to submit a citation to King for the court's consideration or to request supplemental briefing when the court published its decision in King after Movant's direct appeal had been argued and submitted for decision. The court declined to rule that Strickland v. Washington requires an appellate attorney to read advance sheets and consider newly-decided cases in the weeks or months after a direct appeal is fully briefed, argued, and submitted for decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied the motion to supplement the record. The court declined to consider new arguments raised in Movant's pro se reply brief.View "Donnell v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current or former "gang-time" employees at Tyson, filed a class action suit against Tyson for not paying wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law, Iowa Code 91A.1 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that Tyson's K-code time was insufficient to cover compensable pre- and post-production line activities. A jury returned a verdict for the class and Tyson appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class; the court rejected Tyson's contention that the class should be decertified because evidence at trial showed that some class members did not work overtime and would receive no FLSA damages even if Tyson under-compensated their donning, doffing, and walking; the court concluded that Tyson exaggerated the authority for its contention; sufficient evidence existed to support a "reasonable inference" of classwide liability; and plaintiffs showed uncompensated overtime work by applying average donning, doffing, and walking times to employee timesheets. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Bouaphakeo, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

The government filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order, arguing that 21 U.S.C. 848 requires a full sentencing rehearing - that is, that the statute requires the new jury to decide whether defendant is eligible for the death penalty and whether the death penalty should be imposed. The government argued that the district court erred in excluding evidence to prove an aggravating factor that the original jury did not unanimously find. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the court concluded that the district court's approach to defendant's sentencing rehearing contradicts the procedure set forth in 21 U.S.C. 848(j) and (k) in that the new jury would not decide whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the statutory aggravating factors set forth in the notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The new jury must determine for itself whether the government has proved the statutory aggravating factors alleged in the notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Tyson for not paying wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and under Iowa law. The jury returned a verdict for Tyson and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not err in letting the jury decide that donning, doffing, and walking were not "integral or indispensable to a principal activity;" because plaintiffs must prove their case on a classwide basis, the district court did not err in failing to give Reich v. IBP, Inc. and IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez preclusive effect; sufficient evidence existed that the disputed activities were not integral and indispensable classwide; sufficient evidence supported a finding that plaintiffs failed to prove damages for knife users; there was no error in allowing the jury to hear evidence on Tyson's good faith defense; plaintiffs failed to show an abuse of discretion in excluding documentary evidence; and summary judgment was appropriate that donning and doffing during the 35-minute meal period is not compensable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Guyton, et al. v. Tyson Foods" on Justia Law