Civil Rights Action
Where appellant challenged the dismissal of his civil rights action, there was no error warranting reversal. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2707 Reed v. Dixon, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Where appellants appealed after the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss without judicial review, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
20-3413 Cooper v. Glickman, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Failure To Prosecute
Where appellant challenged the pre-service dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court, there was no basis for reversal. Judgment is affirmed.
21-1247 Smith v. Eberhardt, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Where an inmate challenged a final judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3113 East v. Dooley, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Where plaintiff sued the secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs for claims including race discrimination arising from her employment at the agency’s medical center, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation or constructive discharge because she did not show that she suffered an adverse employment action. Judgment is affirmed.
19-3127 Watson v. McDonough, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Seizure Of Students
Where high school students, who were confined to a room and questioned about a Peeping Tom incident while at a camp, sued the investigating officers for claims that included unreasonable seizure, the denial of qualified immunity to the officers is reversed because a reasonable officer could have believed that the investigatory seizure was reasonable, and the seizure was reasonable in scope, and the officers were also entitled to qualified immunity on a conspiracy claim.
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Kelly, J.; “Because I believe T.S.H. and H.R.J. have stated a plausible claim for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, I respectfully dissent. … Assuming the standard articulated in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), applies to a seizure of high school students carried out by their football coach at the behest of law enforcement and away from traditional school grounds, I disagree with the court’s conclusion that the seizure at issue here was reasonable.”
Judgment is reversed.
19-3280 T.S.H. v. Green, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Where a defendant in a child pornography case challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the indictment sufficiently alleged violations of federal laws to support jurisdiction, and the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant because he was brought before it on a federal indictment. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2981 U.S. v. Anderson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Where a defendant challenged the denial of a motion to compel that he filed in his closed criminal case, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion, which should have been dismissed, so the case is remanded with directions to vacate the order denying the motion and enter an order of dismissal. Vacated; remanded.
20-1626 U.S. v. Schumacher, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Firearm Purchase; ‘Intimate Partner’
Where an Iowa court issued a protection order against a defendant but did not expressly designate the protected person as an “intimate partner” although she was, the indictment was sufficient to allege an offense after the defendant purchased a firearm, and the prosecution did not deny the defendant due process because he had sufficient warning that the protective order limited his ability to possess firearms, so the judgment is affirmed in part, but the district court erred by including the defendant’s attempted purchase of a shotgun in its analysis since there was a reasonable probability that the sporting-use reduction would have applied to the offense level calculation, so plain error was established. Judgment is affirmed in part; remanded for resentencing.
19-2914 U.S. v. Sholley-Gonzalez, 8th Circuit, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a methamphetamine case, the defendant’s plea agreement included a waiver that was enforceable and applicable. Appeal is dismissed.
20-2671 U.S. v. Foster, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Where a defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and his supervised release was revoked, the appeal waiver was valid, enforceable and applicable to the issues raised, so the appeal is dismissed in part, and the district court’s calculation of the defendant’s criminal history was correct, so the judgment is otherwise affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
20-2979 U.S. v. Burton, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Classification; Revocation Proceeding
Where a defendant appealed his sentence imposed after violations of the conditions of supervised release, arguing that the district court misclassified three of his violations, the defendant only stipulated that he possessed cocaine and denied that he intended to distribute a controlled substance, so it was error for the court to find that he committed three Grade A violations. Judgment is reversed and remanded.
20-1539 U.S. v. Trent, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District court, Western District of Missouri.
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a methamphetamine case, the district court did not err in imposing a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on a determination that the defendant testified falsely at the hearing, and the court also did not err in denying a two-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility because the defendant falsely denied relevant conduct. Judgment is affirmed.
20-1332 U.S. v. Turner, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Where a defendant challenged the application of a four-level enhancement at sentencing and the denial of his request for an downward variance, the enhancement was supported by evidence of altered serial numbers on a firearm, and the district court provided reasons for the enhancement. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2528 U.S. v. Bounds, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
First Step Act
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a cocaine case, the defendant was eligible for a reduction under the First Step Act, but the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction based on his extensive criminal history and the amount of drugs involved. Judgment is affirmed.
20-1604 U.S. v. Gartley, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Safety Valve Relief
Where a defendant challenged the denial of his eligibility for safety-valve relief in a methamphetamine case, the district court did not clearly err in denying the request because the defendant made a false statement regarding firearm possession by his drug suppliers. Judgment is affirmed.
20-1169 U.S. v. McVay, Erickson, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Where a defendant challenged a sentence imposed for violating the conditions of supervised release, the sentence was substantively reasonable. Judgment is affirmed
20-3469 U.S. v. Wells, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Special Conditions; Polygraph Testing
Where a defendant, on supervised release after his conviction for a sex offense, challenged a modification of a special condition requiring him to participate in polygraph testing and allowing his probation officer or polygraph examiner to speak to his doctor, the district court did not abuse its discretion since the modification was reasonably necessary to enforce the obligation. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2851 U.S. v. Herbst, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Motion To Suppress
Where a defendant challenged the denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop, the beginning of the stop was extended because the defendant was unable to produce his identifying documents, and the officer learned during this initial investigation that he was on federal probation and she saw a loaded handgun magazine in plain view, so the officer properly extended the stop because she developed a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the decision to allow the government to impeach the defendant at trial with his prior testimony from the suppression hearing was not plain error. Judgment is affirmed.
20-1285 U.S. v. Navarette, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Plain View Exception; Incriminating Nature
Where a defendant moved to suppress evidence of glass vials containing controlled substances confiscated by officers during a warrantless seizure, the plain view exception did not apply to the seizure of the pill vials because the incriminating nature of the vials was not immediately apparent, so the district court did not err in granting the motion to suppress.
Dissenting opinion by Gruender, J; “In sum, considering the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Fenton had probable cause to associate the glass vials with illegal drug possession and/or use. In concluding otherwise, the court requires certainty rather than probability; it views facts individually rather than in their totality; and it conjures implausible possibilities at the expense of common sense.”
Judgment is affirmed.
20-1382 U.S. v. Arredondo, Erickson, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Employer – Employee
Adverse Summary Judgment
Where appellant challenged an adverse grant of summary judgment in an employment discrimination action, there was no basis for reversal. Judgment is affirmed.
20-3002 Raynor v. U.S. Postal Service, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Where paramedics and emergency medical technicians brought a class action lawsuit claiming that the city employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying members of the class, the district court did not err in determining that the first plaintiff class of “static, single-job paramedics” was properly paid overtime in compliance with the act’s overtime provisions, and the court also did not err in finding that the second plaintiff class of “dual-job paramedics, cross trained in both firefighting and emergency services” was partially exempt from overtime pay because they have responsibilities under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(y). Judgment is affirmed.
19-2721 Zimmerli v. The City of Kansas City, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Safety Protocol; Causation
Where an employee challenged a summary judgment in favor of his former employer on claims including retaliation for making whistleblower claims under Minnesota law and for making a sexual harassment complaint, summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff did not establish causation to support the retaliation claims, and causation was also lacking for the FMLA claim. Judgment is affirmed.
19-3783 Lissick v. Andersen Corporation, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Temporary Protected Status; ‘Admission’
Where a petitioner sought review of the decision denying his request for cancellation of removal, arguing that the grant of temporary protected status extinguished the need for him to show that he was “admitted” or that the grant of TPS was an admission for cancellation purposes, the grant of TPS did not constitute an admission and does not excuse the admission requirement. Petition denied.
19-1286 Artola v. Garland, Gruender, J. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Directors and Officers Policy
Where a district court granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss based on a contractual liability exclusion in an endorsement to a directors-and-officers liability policy, the policy was ambiguous on the exclusion of coverage. Judgment is reversed.
19-3511 Verto Medical Solutions, LLC v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, Stras, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Sophisticated Consumers; Jury Instructions
Where plaintiffs and defendants both brought claims on appeal after a mixed verdict in a trademark infringement case between competing sellers of adjustable air mattresses, the district court erred by finding that the buyers were sophisticated consumers and by holding that a theory of initial confusion could not apply, so the judgment is reversed as the court also erred by limiting the jury instructions to require confusion at the time of purchase and by instructing the jury in a manner that shifted the burden of proof on the materiality element of plaintiffs’ false advertising claims. Judgment is reversed and remanded.
19-1077 Select Comfort Corporation v. Baxter, Melloy, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.