Minnesota Lawyer
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Social Security Disability
Denial of Benefits; RFC Determination
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his application for Social Security disability benefits. Where the ALJ discounted plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the opinion of his treating physician and concluded that the evidence showed plaintiff had a residual functional capacity, the commissioner properly denied plaintiff’s request for disability benefits.
Judgment is affirmed.
Social Security Disability
Denial of Benefits; RFC Determination
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits. An ALJ had found that while plaintiff suffered from impairments, they did not equal or exceed the severity of a listed impairment, and plaintiff maintained residual functional capacity to perform light work.
Where the evidence did not show that plaintiff suffered at least two marked limitations or one extreme limitation to her neurocognitive functioning and did not have a marked limitation in physical functioning, the ALJ properly found that plaintiff continued to have an RFC for light work involving simple tasks.
Judgment is affirmed.
20-3341 Schmitt v. Kijakazi, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II Claim; State Prisons
An Arkansas state prisoner appealed from the pre-service dismissal of his Title II claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, brought against officials of the Arkansas Department of Corrections.
Where state prisons fell within the scope of Title II, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded an ADA claim by alleging that DOC employees failed to accommodate his disabilities that purportedly rendered him unable to access prison recreation and visitation facilities.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
21-2476 Starr v. Bland, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Conspiracy
False Imprisonment/Malicious Prosecution; Qualified Immunity
Plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging that defendants conspired to include false statements in an affidavit of probable cause connected to his arrest for drug trafficking. Plaintiff was ultimately acquitted of the charge. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s suit, finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
Where the affidavit would still support a finding of probable cause even with the alleged false statements removed, plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1428 Allen v. Monico, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Excessive Force
FTCA; Law Enforcement Officer’s Use of Personal Firearm
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims of battery, negligence, and negligent supervision and training arising from alleged excessive force committed by a U.S. Marshal.
Where the marshal’s use of force was not objectively unreasonable and justified under applicable state law, and where the record did not support a claim of negligence for the marshal’s use of his personal firearm, plaintiff’s tort claims failed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Excessive Force
Peaceful Protesting; Constitutional Violation
Plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Plaintiff alleged that defendant law enforcement officials adopted a policy of firing lead-filled bean bags and other less-than-lethal devices into groups of protestors to effect their arrest, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
First Amendment claims failed where plaintiff failed to show that defendants were motivated by “animus” towards the exercise of First Amendment rights, but the use of less-than-lethal devices against a non-resisting suspect being detained for a non-violent offense could be found unreasonable force.
Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Fatal Police Shooting
Excessive Force; Qualified Immunity
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to dismiss plaintiff’s excessive force claim on grounds of qualified immunity, finding that there was a material factual dispute regarding whether defendant saw the suspect drop his gun when ordered and whether defendant was unreasonable in believing the suspect was taking a firing position rather than surrendering
Where defendant’s bodycam footage showed him looking directly at the suspect’s gun after he had dropped it and showed the suspect in a nearly prone position prior to defendant opening fire, there was sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that defendant engaged in unconstitutional excessive force.
Judgment is affirmed.
CONTRACTS
Sale of Goods
Exclusion of Consequential Damages; Enforceability of Contractual Limitations on Recovery
Plaintiff had purchased specialty windows from defendant. Under the parties’ contract, defendant was expressly held harmless from any indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or punitive damages. Defendant also disclaimed any implied warranties. Plaintiff’s exclusive remedies were a refund of the purchase price or replacement of a failed window. The district court accordingly dismissed plaintiff’s suit to recover damages arising from its costs to repair and replace failing windows.
Where defendant never promised to remove defective windows or install new ones, the legal relief sought by plaintiff fell within the category of consequential damages that the parties contractually agreed defendant would not be liable for, and the district court properly enforced the contract due to the equal bargaining power of the sophisticated parties.
Judgment is affirmed.
CRIMINAL LAW
Assault of Intimate/Dating Partner
Upward Sentencing Variance; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty plea to assaulting his girlfriend. Defendant challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence, which the district court imposed after varying upward.
Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no procedural or substantive error in the district court’s discussion of placing defendant in a drug-rehabilitation program in prison.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1272 U.S. v. Cavanaugh, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Child Pornography
Within-Guideline Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. Defendant argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Where the district court considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, defendant did not receive a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3332 U.S. v. Chandler, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
First Step Act; Reduction of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs and imposition of a life sentence. The court previously remanded defendant’s motion, ruling that defendant was eligible for First Step Act relief but acknowledging that the district court retained discretion over whether to grant a sentence reduction.
Where the district court weighed the factors for and against a sentence reduction, the court deferred to the district court’s exercise of discretion not to grant a reduction.
Kelly, J., dissenting: “But here, McDonald presented meaningful evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation and maturity worthy of consideration in the discretionary analysis. By not addressing this evidence, the district court failed to conduct a “complete review” of the motion, and I would remand the case for further proceedings.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Maintaining Premises for Distribution of Drugs; Below-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level increase to defendant’s offense level for having “maintained a premises” for distributing drugs. The district court then imposed a below-Guidelines sentence.
Where a premises did not need to be maintained solely for drug manufacturing or distribution, the district court did not err in applying the offense level increase, and its below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where it declined to vary downward further for other mitigating factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute
Plea Agreement Appeal Waiver; Calculation of Increased Offense Level
Defendant appealed from his judgment of sentence for conspiracy to distribute, which imposed a two-level increase for defendant’s use of a firearm in connection with the offense and an enhanced offense level based on his career-offender status. Defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, which preserved defendant’s right to appeal an upward departure or variance from the sentencing Guidelines.
Where the district court sentenced defendant within the Guidelines after applying increased offense levels, the appeal waiver in defendant’s plea agreement barred his challenge to the district court’s obvious error in calculating the offense level.
Gruender, J., concurring: “Disregarding appeal waivers whenever the district court made what in hindsight was an obvious error would reduce the value of appeal waivers to the government and thus reduce criminal defendants’ bargaining power in plea negotiations.”
Melloy, J., concurring: “I write separately only to express my disappointment with the refusal of the United States Attorney’s Office to join with the defense in requesting a remand to correct an obvious error.”
Kelly, J., concurring: “I share Judge Melloy’s disappointment with the government’s decision not to agree to a remand. But this case also highlights the self-imposed shortcomings in our ability to correct obvious errors that affect the rights of individual defendants.”
Judgment is affirmed.
20-3507 U.S. v. Howard, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Distribution of Drugs
Supervisory Role Sentencing Enhancement; Downward Departure from Guidelines
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction on drug offenses. The district court enhanced the offense level after finding that defendant played an aggravating role in the drug dealing operation by supervising sales. However, the district court then departed downward from the enhanced Guidelines range based on defendant’s cooperation in the government’s prosecution of another individual.
Where the evidence showed that the co-defendant did not start the drug distribution operation prior to defendant’s involvement or that they equally shared in profits, defendant’s provision of equipment and materials was sufficient to find that he exercised supervisory role over co-defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
20-3676 U.S. v. Hibbert, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Drug Offense
Balancing of Sentencing Factors; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug offense. Defendant argued that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors and weighing his criminal history too heavily.
Where there was no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor or gave undue weight to any factor, defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2445 U.S. v. Brocks, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Enticing a Minor
Plea Agreement; Upward Variance
Defendant entered a plea deal to plead guilty to enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity. Under the plea agreement, defendant stipulated to a base offense level of 28, two-level increases each for commission of a sex act and use of a computer, and a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. At sentencing, the district court granted the government’s motion for a 50 percent upward variance from the Guidelines range.
Where the government failed to timely provide defendant and his counsel with an updated PSR that contained uncorroborated statements from the victim, and where the district court relied upon a factor already accounted for in the Guidelines range to vary upward, defendant’s rights were prejudiced and he was entitled to resentencing.
Judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing.
20-3736 U.S. v. Berrier, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Offense Level Enhancement; Prior Controlled Substance Offense
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court accepted the PSR’s recommendation for a base level enhancement for defendant’s prior Illinois conviction for manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant argued that his Illinois conviction was not a controlled substance offense.
Where prior cases had ruled defendant’s prior Illinois conviction to be a controlled substance offense, his arguments on appeal were foreclosed by precedent.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1086 U.S. v. McConnell, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Firearm Offense
Calculation of Sentence; Prior Crime of Violence
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed by the district court after defendant pleaded guilty to firearms offenses. Defendant argued that the district court erred in concluding that one of his prior state convictions was a crime of violence.
Where prior cases had held that defendant’s state offense of conviction was a crime of violence because there was no reasonable way the offense could be committed without physical force or the threat of force, the district court properly found that defendant a prior conviction for a crime of violence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2531 U.S. v. Wheat, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Firearm Offense
Constitutionality of Statute; In or Affecting Interstate Commerce
Defendant appealed from his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because his possession of a firearm was not in or affecting commerce.
Where the court had previously ruled in other cases that Congress had not exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting §922(g), defendant’s arguments on appeal were foreclosed.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2297 U.S. v. Duchaine, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Firearm Offense
Upward Sentencing Variance; Excessive Sentence
Defendant appealed from his judgment of sentence, in which the district court applied an upward variance. Defendant contended that his aggregate sentence was unreasonably long for his firearm offense.
Where the district court found that a longer sentence was needed due to the failure of prior, more lenient sentences to deter defendant from criminal conduct, the upward variance was substantively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1475 U.S. v. Sarazin, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
First-Degree Murder
Testimony Conflicting; Theory Varying from Indictment
Defendant appealed from his conviction for first-degree murder and related offenses, arising from the killing of 19-month-old A.H. On appeal, defendant argued that his due process rights were violated when the district court allowed testimony from A.H.’s mother, T.H., that conflicted with a pending federal juvenile information against her and allowed the government to present a theory at trial that materially varied from the indictment.
Where defendant was given opportunity to cross-examine T.H. about her role in A.H.’s death, including the fact that she also had been charged with murder, and where the indictment put defendant on notice that the government only had to prove that he had been involved in A.H.’s killing, there was no due process violation during the trial.
Judgment is affirmed.
20-2793 U.S. v. Poor Bear, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Basis of Sentence; Sentencing Court’s Factual Error
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court relied on a mistake of fact in crafting the sentence.
While the district court erred in the length of defendant’s original supervised release term, such error was harmless where the district court based the sentence on the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2178 U.S. v. Hunt, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Sentencing; Abuse of Discretion
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed by the district court after it revoked his supervised release.
The district court did not abuse its discretion during sentencing when it considered and reasonably weighed all the relevant statutory sentencing factors, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3729 U.S. v. Shouse, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Certified Copy of Judgment; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 24-month prison sentence. Defendant argued that his sentence was unreasonable and that the district court erred by relying on a certified copy of a state court judgment to find that defendant had violated a condition of his release.
The district court did not err in relying on a certified copy of defendant’s state criminal conviction for a drug offense, or by imposing sentence on defendant after considering and fairly weighing all relevant sentencing factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3273 U.S. v. Fulks, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Violation of Conditions; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed from the district court’s revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the district court erred in finding that a preponderance of the evidence showed defendant had violated the conditions of supervision.
Where the district court did not make a clear error in its findings of fact, there was no basis to overturn its decision to revoke defendant’s supervised release.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2722 U.S. v. Bevins, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Within-Guidelines Sentence; Special Condition
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. The district court imposed a 10-month prison term followed by two years of supervised release, during which defendant had an additional obligation to undergo mental health evaluation and follow through on recommended treatment. Defendant challenged the sentence term and imposition of a new special condition.
Where the district court imposed a within-Guidelines term, defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable or unconstitutional as the district court cited defendant’s long history of erratic and anti-social behavior and his own admission that he suffered from severe mental illness.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1732 U.S. v. Hicks, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Tax Offenses
Sufficiency of Evidence; Motion in Limine
Defendant appealed from his jury conviction for tax offenses, challenging the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial and arguing that the district court improperly granted the government’s motion in limine and denied defendant’s pre-trial motions.
Where the evidence showed that defendant had underreported his income even when directly questioned by his tax preparer, the jury could reasonably infer willfulness to support a conviction, and the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings where defendant sought to introduce false and irrelevant information.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2664 U.S. v. Hird, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Wire Fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft; Federal and State Sentences
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The district court imposed a federal sentence that was to run consecutively to a state sentence that defendant had received for unrelated criminal conduct.
District court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence even though defendant would not receive federal credit for time spent in federal custody prior to sentencing.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1940 U.S. v. Nelson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
IMMIGRATION
Naturalization Application
Good Moral Character; Prior Conviction
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Turkey, appealed from the denial of his application for naturalization. The district court dismissed the petition on the government’s motion after finding that petitioner failed to establish that he was a person of good moral character as required for naturalization.
The district court erroneously treated petitioner’s prior misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction as a per se bar to naturalization and should have considered the merits of petitioner’s allegations that plausibly pleaded that he was a person of good moral character entitled to naturalization.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Petition for Alien Relative
Denial of Petition; Fraudulent Prior Marriage
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government defendants. Plaintiff had filed a petition for alien relative on behalf of her husband, Simon. USCIS denied the petition after finding that Simon’s first marriage to another woman was fraudulently entered for the purpose of evading immigration laws.
Where there was sufficient evidence for prior courts to conclude that Simon’s first marriage was fraudulent, including signed statements from his first wife admitting that she was paid to marry Simon, the court did not err in affirming the denial of plaintiff’s petition after giving due consideration to Simon’s first wife’s current allegations that her signed statement was made under duress.
Judgment is affirmed.
20-3088 Iyawe v. Garland, Kelley, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
NEGLIGENCE
Legal Malpractice
Recovery of Legal Fees; Required Showing for Recovery
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiff had hired defendant to represent it in a lawsuit. During the suit, defendant produced documents without a privilege log, resulting in the waiver of plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff hired substitute counsel in an unsuccessful appeal of the waiver decision. Plaintiff then filed the present action to recoup the fees it paid to successor counsel.
While plaintiff only needed to show that it would not have incurred fees to successor counsel in the absence of defendant’s negligence, it did not need to prove the “case-within-a-case” and corrective fees could be recovered without an underlying judgment.
Erickson, J., concurring and dissenting: “Before I would expose a law firm to this previously uncharted type of malpractice claim with potential damages exceeding $500,000, I would take the rare step of certifying the question to the Arkansas Supreme Court, even though neither party made such a request. Absent certification, I would defer to the expertise of the district judge sitting in Arkansas, as I believe he is a better predictor of Arkansas law than we are.”
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
REAL ESTATE
Residential Tenant Application; Regulation of Criteria
Plaintiffs appealed from the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs had challenged defendant city’s ordinance that regulated the criteria that landlords could use to evaluate applicants. Plaintiffs argued the ordinance violated the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause.
Where the ordinance was a restriction on plaintiffs’ ability to use their property, it did not constitute a physical-invasion taking, nor did it violate plaintiffs’ due process rights and the ability to exclude a prospective tenant was not a fundamental right.
Judgment is affirmed.
TORTS
Zoning Violation Enforcement
Malicious Prosecution; Intentional Interference
Plaintiff appealed from the summary judgment dismissal of its complaint, asserting various tort claims in response to defendant city’s handling of zoning and noise violations assessed against plaintiff.
Where plaintiff’s claims were barred under the statute of limitations, not cognizable under appliable Iowa law, or subject to a “substantial truthfulness” defense, the district court properly dismissed the complaint.
Judgment is affirmed.
