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

Defendant appealed her convictions stemming from a robbery of a mini mart. The court concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on her affirmative defense of coercion or duress where she herself requested the instruction. Further, this was not an exceptional case warranting review of defendant's ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. Such claims would more appropriately be raised in a collateral challenge to defendant's conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mathison" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for two heroin-related offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine over his Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) objection allowing witnesses to testify about defendant's alleged track distribution, and denial of defendant's objection to testimony about money laundering under Rule 401; in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where defendant failed to show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel at the time of the motion and hearing; in considering defendant's crack-distribution conduct when calculating his advisory guidelines offense level; and in calculating defendant's criminal history score. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his case, arguing that his allegations of fact sufficiently stated a claim for, inter alia, breach of contract. Plaintiff's claim arose from a mortgage modification process he entered into with Chase under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The court concluded that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract by alleging sufficient facts to show that the elements of a contract exist, that the conditions precedent were satisfied or waived, and that an exception to the statute of frauds applied. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's requests for asylum, cancellation of removal, special cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner's 1989 conviction for grand theft auto was an aggravated felony which made him ineligible for cancellation of removal and special cancellation of removal; the court joined its sister circuits in concluding that Congress intended the aggravated felony bar to apply to convictions received before the enactment of the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (MTINA) in 1991, and the court further concluded that the bar applied to petitioner's 1989 conviction; and the court declined to address petitioner's adverse credibility claims on mootness grounds. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Nyffeler, a residential construction company, petitioned for review of an adverse agency decision by the Review Commission. The court concluded that the petition was untimely and the district court never had authority to transfer the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631. Therefore, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. View "Nyffeler Construction, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's pretermission of his application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The court concluded that petitioner's prior conviction for tampering with records under Iowa Code 715A.5 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court denied the petition for review. View "Villatoro v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Thomas and Martha Duban filed suit against Waverly, alleging negligence arising out of Martha's injuries she sustained when she was stepped on by a horse at the Waverly draft horse auction. At issue was whether, as a matter of law, the exception from the Iowa Code applies, such that Waverly cannot take advantage of the general immunity provided to domesticated animal activity sponsors. The court held that, because Waverly designated or intended the northeast alley as an area for persons who were not participants to be present, the exception from Iowa Code 673.2(4) applied to these facts as a matter of law, and Waverly was subject to liability for Martha's injuries. Accordingly, the court concluded that the motions for judgment as a matter of law were properly denied. View "Duban, et al. v. Waverly Sales Co." on Justia Law

The state appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of murder. The court concluded that counsel's failure to move for a mistrial after the trial court improperly substituted an alternate juror for a juror who had been dismissed was a strategic decision that did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under Strickland v. Washington. Further, the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in concluding that petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Accordingly, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief and reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Escobedo v. Lund" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the father and minor children of the deceased Samuel De Boise, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against police officers and the police department, as well as a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., against the county. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Lively and Percich, and to the county. The court concluded that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances; even if Officer Percich's and Lively's repeated tasings of Samuel amounted to excessive force in violation of Samuel's Fourth Amendment rights, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident; and the facts in this case did not demonstrate any violation of the ADA, considering the unexpected and rapidly evolving circumstances and the use of force on Samuel was due to his objectively verifiable misconduct, not his disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "De Boise, Sr., et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's suppression of statements and evidence gathered during the search of defendant's home and car. Defendant was charged with two counts of receipt and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's statements and consent were voluntary where the agent who interviewed defendant and requested his consent to search did not make threats or promises, use deceptive tactics, or even raise his voice. Additionally, defendant spoke clearly, was coherent, and appeared to understand what was happening. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's suppression of the statements. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law