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

Jermaine Steven Daye pleaded guilty to arson, having set a fire in the hallway of an occupied apartment building. The presentence investigation report recommended classifying Daye as a career offender due to two previous convictions for Domestic Abuse Assault, Enhanced (DAAE) under Iowa Code § 708.2A(3)(b). However, Daye objected to this classification, arguing that the DAAE convictions were not "crimes of violence" within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines. The district court agreed, finding that DAAE is not categorically a crime of violence and thus Daye was not a career offender. Daye was sentenced to 84 months' imprisonment, an upward variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines range of 60 to 63 months. The Government appealed, claiming Daye is a career offender.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether DAAE has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, defining a crime of violence. The Government argued that DAAE is divisible and thus could be considered a crime of violence. However, the court found the Government's argument insufficient and waived it, thus applying the categorical approach to DAAE. According to this approach, the court looks at the abstract requirements for a conviction rather than the defendant's actual conduct and determines if a conviction necessarily had a physical force element for the crime to qualify as a crime of violence under the force clause.The court noted that under Iowa law, DAAE is an enhanced assault statute that imposes increased penalties for conduct that violates Iowa's simple assault statute and which is committed against someone within a domestic relationship. The court concluded that a defendant could be found guilty of DAAE by committing three simple misdemeanor domestic abuse assaults, which the Government conceded were not crimes of violence. Thus, the court determined there was a non-fanciful, non-theoretical manner by which a person could be convicted of DAAE without so much as the threatened use of physical force. The court therefore affirmed the district court's decision, holding that DAAE is not categorically a crime of violence and that Daye was not a career offender. View "United States v. Daye" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Thomas Brewer's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Brewer, who had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, sought to challenge the legality of his 10-year prison sentence for the latter charge. He argued that voluntary manslaughter did not qualify as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c). However, the appellate court rejected this argument. It held that voluntary manslaughter does constitute a crime of violence as it involves a higher level of mens rea or mental state (depraved heart recklessness or general intent to kill) than ordinary recklessness, which the Supreme Court in Borden v. United States deemed insufficient to meet the use-of-force criteria for a crime of violence. The court also relied on its prior decision in McCoy v. United States which held that voluntary manslaughter is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). The court concluded that Borden did not supersede McCoy as it did not address whether an offense committed with depraved heart or extreme recklessness has as an element the use of force against the person of another. The court also rejected Brewer's reliance on United States v. Lung’aho, which held that arson is not a crime of violence, noting that second-degree murder, if committed with a mental state of depraved heart or extreme recklessness, requires “more risk and culpability” than arson. View "Brewer v. United States" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in a case brought by the State of Missouri against several Chinese entities, including the government of the People's Republic of China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and others. Missouri accused the defendants of negligence in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging that they allowed the virus to spread worldwide, engaged in a campaign to keep other countries from learning about the virus, and hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE). The court decided that most of Missouri's claims were blocked by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally protects foreign states from lawsuits in U.S. courts. However, the court allowed one claim to proceed: the allegation that China hoarded PPE while the rest of the world was unaware of the extent of the virus. The court held that this claim fell under the "commercial activity" exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, as it involved alleged anti-competitive behavior that had a direct effect in the United States. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "The State of Missouri v. The Peoples Republic of China" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in a case concerning a law in Iowa that penalized anyone who, while trespassing, knowingly placed or used a camera or surveillance device on the trespassed property. The law was challenged by five animal-welfare groups who argued that it unconstitutionally punished activity protected by the First Amendment. The lower court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the law was unconstitutional on its face because it was not narrowly tailored to achieve the state's substantial interests. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the part of the law that penalized the use of cameras while trespassing (the "Use Provision"), but not the part penalizing the placement of cameras on trespassed property (the "Place Provision"). The court also disagreed with the lower court's conclusion that the law was unconstitutional, holding that it survived intermediate scrutiny against a facial challenge and was not unconstitutionally overbroad, as it did not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Officer Andrei Nikolov, who had been sued for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case arose from an incident in which the officer shot Jennifer Morgan-Tyra multiple times after responding to a domestic-disturbance call. Upon arrival at the scene, the officer encountered an angry Morgan-Tyra holding a gun and shouting expletives at someone out of his view. When she did not comply with a command to drop the gun, Officer Nikolov fired at least nine shots, several of which struck Morgan-Tyra and caused severe and lasting injuries.In affirming the district court's judgment, the appeals court found that, even if Officer Nikolov's decision to shoot without warning was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, he did not violate a clearly established right. The court noted that officers may use deadly force when there is probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, and that a warning is less likely to be feasible in a high-pressure situation that requires a split-second judgment. The court also found that a reasonable officer in Nikolov's position would not have known whether Morgan-Tyra was the initial aggressor or a victim who had fought back, and that it was not clearly unreasonable to shoot her under the circumstances. Even considering Morgan-Tyra's version of facts, the court held that she was wielding the gun in a menacing fashion and appeared ready to shoot. Thus, the court concluded that Officer Nikolov is entitled to qualified immunity. View "Jennifer Morgan-Tyra v. Andrei Nikolov" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court's decision that an Iowa law violated the First Amendment. The law prohibited accessing an agricultural production facility under false pretenses or making a false statement or misrepresentation as part of a job application at such a facility, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the facility. Various organizations challenged this law, arguing it was unconstitutional as it was "viewpoint-based", targeting speakers with negative views of agricultural production facilities. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa agreed and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, enjoining officials from enforcing the law. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that the law was constitutional as it restricted intentionally false speech carried out to cause a legally recognized harm. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the judgment, vacated the injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

In 1996, Duane D. Worthington was charged with several crimes related to a robbery he committed in Iowa. The government sought enhanced penalties due to his past convictions for robbery and attempted robbery, which they argued constituted “serious violent felonies” under federal law. Worthington pled guilty to all four counts and received a sentence of 425 months in prison. Years later, the Supreme Court ruled that increasing a statutory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)’s residual clause violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Following this ruling, Worthington sought to challenge his sentence, arguing that his past convictions no longer qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA. The district court vacated his sentence and ordered a resentencing hearing. The court determined that Worthington was a "career offender" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) and imposed a new sentence of 420 months. Worthington appealed, arguing that the district court erred in calculating his advisory sentencing range. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court was bound by the appellate court's prior decision that denied Worthington authorization to challenge his career offender status. Therefore, the district court did not err by refusing to recalculate Worthington’s advisory sentencing range under the newer version of the Guidelines. View "United States v. Worthington" on Justia Law

In this case, UMB Bank, N.A. (UMB) filed a complaint against Jessie Benton and her children, alleging that they violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by committing acts of mail, wire, and bank fraud. The dispute arose from the management of a family trust, which included works of art, real estate, and personal effects. The beneficiaries of the trust accused UMB of mismanagement and sued UMB in a separate Missouri state court case. UMB then filed this federal case, arguing that the beneficiaries and their attorney engaged in fraudulent activities to force UMB to increase trust distributions or resign as trustee.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss UMB's complaint for failure to state a civil RICO claim. The court agreed that UMB failed to sufficiently allege a pattern of racketeering activity. Although UMB might be able to prove that three communications to media outlets qualify as predicate acts of mail, wire, or bank fraud, these acts did not show a pattern of racketeering activity because they occurred within a few days and targeted a single victim (UMB). The court also affirmed the district court's denial of UMB's post-judgment motions for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendment was both untimely and futile. View "UMB Bank v. Guerin" on Justia Law

This case concerns the appeal of Gordon Grabau's sentence for receiving child pornography, with the appellant arguing that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement because he knowingly distributed child pornography. The United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, maintaining that Grabau, who was a field technician for a technology company and held a bachelor's degree in computer science, demonstrated superior knowledge about how software works. This knowledge, in conjunction with his use of the peer-to-peer file-sharing program BitTorrent and his possession of a large collection of child pornography, was deemed by the court as sufficient evidence that Grabau knowingly distributed child pornography. Therefore, the application of the two-level enhancement was found to be appropriate. View "United States v. Grabau" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, the plaintiffs, a group of patients, sued BJC Health System (BJC) alleging that BJC had violated their medical privacy rights under Missouri state law. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that when they accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through BJC’s online patient portal, their protected health information was shared with third-party marketing services. BJC removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that they acted under the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when creating and operating the online patient portal. BJC's argument was rejected by the district court which ordered the case to be remanded back to Missouri state court. BJC appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to remand the case to the Missouri state court. The appellate court held that BJC, while receiving federal incentive payments from HHS for creating and operating the online patient portal, was not essentially performing a basic governmental task or duty. Therefore, BJC was not acting under a federal officer in terms of the federal officer removal statute. The court concluded that the creation and operation of an online patient portal was not a basic governmental task, and BJC was not a government contractor or functioning as a federal instrumentality. View "Doe v. BJC Health System" on Justia Law