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

Defendant appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and domestic assault by an habitual offender. Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting statements from the victim as an excited utterance because the alleged victim was not under the stress of the incident at the time she made the statements. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements as an excited utterance considering the 30 minute lapse of time between the incident and the statements, the victim was shaking and appeared to have been crying, and the statements were offered in response to the officer's general inquiry into what had happened. Further, while defendant may offer alternative explanations for the victim's appearance and behavior, those explanations did not undermine the district court's exercise of its discretion in determining that the victim's statements bore a "guarantee of trustworthiness" and were not subject to reflection and deliberation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Graves" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's denial of their motion to remand and its dismissal on the merits of their claims against Wells Fargo and Kozeny. The court concluded that, because plaintiffs did not allege that Kozeny owed a tort duty enumerated in the deed of trust, no reasonable basis in fact and law supported plaintiffs' negligence claim against Kozeny; because there was no reasonable basis in fact and law for either of plaintiffs' negligence and breach of fiduciary claims, it follows that Kozeny was fraudulently joined and that the district court properly denied plaintiffs' motion to remand; the court modified the district court's dismissal of the claims against Kozeny to be without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and because Kozeny - the only nondiverse defendant - was dismissed, the district court properly retained federal diversity jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining claims against Wells Fargo. Because plaintiffs failed to state a claim of wrongful foreclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.020.1, negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, the district court properly granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. View "Wivell, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits (SSI) based on his post traumatic stress disorder, arthritis, headaches, hearing problems, back and knee problems, and acid reflux. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in denying plaintiff benefits because the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Smith v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits (SSI) based on her mental impairment. The court concluded that the record was not fully developed as to plaintiff's mental impairments. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further development of the record. The ALJ shall reschedule plaintiff for an IQ test and other testing he deems appropriate before ruling on plaintiff's claim for benefits. View "Channell v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm where the district court found that defendant constructively possessed the firearm that was found and that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with defendant's drug trafficking offense. The district court also properly applied a two level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Renteria-Saldana" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on his trial counsel's ineffectiveness. The court concluded that counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient for failing to assert a statute of limitations defense and the district court properly denied relief on this claim; under the circumstances, which include a deadlocked jury in petitioner's first trial, the court granted in part petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability, vacate the denial of section 2255 relief, and remand to the district court to reconsider the issue in light of Burrage v. United States; the court also left for the district court to determine in the first instance whether petitioner's substantive challenge faces any significant procedural hurdles to its consideration on the merits. View "Ragland v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1993, a class of plaintiffs represented by Reggie White settled a lawsuit with the NFL by signing an extensive collective bargaining agreement (the SSA), that governed labor relations between the NFL and its players. In 2011, the Association filed suit against the NFL, asserting that the NFL had violated the SSA in 2010 by instituting a secret cap on player salaries. The suit was settled and the Association now seeks to set aside the Stipulation of Dismissal and reopen its breach-of-SSA claim. Because the White class never asserted any of the claims settled in the dismissal, because these claims did not arise from a bargained-for class settlement, because the parties themselves have never treated the SSA like a class settlement, and because only a handful of the White class members were affected by the dismissal, the court concluded that the failure of the district court and the litigants to abide by the class settlement procedures of Rule 23(e) did not invalidate the dismissal. The court agreed with its sister circuits that have held that a stipulated dismissal constitutes a "judgment" under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's Rule 23 ruling, reversed the district court's Rule 60 ruling, and remanded for further proceedings. View "White, et al. v. National Football League, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for use of interstate facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 2E1.4(a)(2) to cross reference to U.S.S.G. 2A1.5(b)(1) to calculate the base offense level for his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of a class B misdemeanor under N.D. Cent. Code 36-11-01 for the offense of livestock running at large after three of his horses were discovered roaming freely in his neighbor's fields. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, under North Dakota law, petitioner was entitled to appeal his misdemeanor conviction as a matter of right. The court held that petitioner was entitled to relief on his habeas petition, and thus the court remanded the case to the district court with directions that it be held in abeyance for not longer than 120 days from the date of issuance of the court's mandate. If within that time the State grants petitioner leave to take an out-of-time appeal with the assistance of counsel, the district court shall dismiss his petition. If such an appeal is not granted within that period, the district court shall enter judgment vacating petitioner's conviction. View "Koenig v. State of North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of Allstate's motion for summary judgment and denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that defendant's son-in-law was not an insured person under an umbrella insurance policy. Because the plain language of the Allstate umbrella policy provided XL coverage only for the legal obligation of insured persons, and the son-in-law was not an insured person under the umbrella policy, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Rice" on Justia Law