Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Rights
Detainee Action
Failure To Protect; Qualified Immunity
Where two corrections officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity for claims brought by a former detainee, the district court properly denied qualified immunity on the failure-to-protect claim, but one officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that the officer was deliberately indifferent to the detainee’s medical needs, so the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Motion to Dismiss Out of Time
Excusable Neglect; Tribal Sovereignty
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s dismissal of his claims against several defendants.
Where the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing tribal officers to file a motion to dismiss out of time, it properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims pursuant to tribal sovereignty.
Judgment is affirmed.
Bergeson v. South Dakota (MLW No. 78445/Case No. 22-1318 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J.
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/221318U.pdf
Prison Inmate
Deliberate Indifference; Retaliation
Plaintiff, an inmate, suffered from multiple medical conditions that he claimed received inadequate treatment from prison officials, who allegedly also engaged in retaliation after plaintiff filed grievances. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding that defendant was not responsible for cancelling plaintiff’s physician-prescribed diet.
Where the district court failed to address plaintiff’s allegations that defendant, prior to cancelling plaintiff’s diet plan, repeatedly stopped or otherwise interfered with the diet, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant was in error.
Judgment is vacated and remanded.
20-3022 Charron v. Allen, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Search
Traffic Stop; Qualified Immunity
Where plaintiffs brought claims against a patrolman, arguing that he violated their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the patrolman had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop based on a license plate infraction, so he was entitled to qualified immunity, and he was also entitled to summary judgment on another plaintiff’s claims since he was not responsible for her traffic stop or her arrest, and claims that the police chief and mayor had notice of patrolman’s behavior and failed to stop it failed because there was no evidence that the defendants knew of and deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of unconstitutional harm posed by the patrolman.
Judgment is reversed.
Constitutional Law
Sex Offender Statute
Qualified Immunity
Where a non-profit organization that provided charitable services to the poor brought claims against the county, after the sheriff’s office began to enforce a statute which prohibited people convicted of sex offenses from being within 500 feet of a public park, arguing that enforcement of the statute meant the charity, which was near such a park, could not serve certain people, the claims seeking broad injunctive relief were moot because the sheriff resigned and the county said it would no longer enforce the statute as to the charity, and the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against the county, and the judgment is affirmed since the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity since the charity’s right to provide services to certain sex offenders within 500 feet of a park was not clearly established at the time of the sheriff’s action.
Judgment is affirmed.
Contracts
Breach of Settlement Agreement
Misappropriation of IP; Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of its breach of settlement lawsuit against defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ company developed a new medical device that violated plaintiff’s intellectual property rights under the settlement. However, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint after finding two claims barred by the statute of limitations and the third legally insufficient to allege a breach.
Where plaintiff’s claims accrued when defendants failed to get their company to agree to be bound to the settlement, plaintiff’s suit was untimely under the statute of limitations.
Judgment is affirmed.
Breach of Settlement Agreement
Non-Party; Equitable Estoppel/Agency
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s dismissal of its breach of settlement agreement complaint against defendant. The settlement resolved ownership of IP rights related to medical devices; however, defendant was not a party to the settlement agreement. The district court granted defendant summary judgment on that basis, rejecting plaintiff’s reliance on agency and equitable estoppel principles.
Where plaintiff provided no evidence that defendant misrepresented or concealed a material fact or that the counterparty to the settlement had the authority to direct defendant’s activities, the district court correctly rejected plaintiff’s invocation of equitable estoppel and agency to bind defendant to the settlement.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Minor
Evidentiary Rulings; Interference from the Gallery
Defendant appealed from his conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, arguing that the district court erred in various evidentiary rulings and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Defendant also claimed that behavior by members of the gallery deprived him of a fair trial. Finally, defendant argued that the district court improperly considered prior bad acts during sentencing.
The district court properly admitted and relied upon certain prior bad acts by defendant due to the similarities between those prior acts and the charged offenses, and the victim’s testimony at trial was itself sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction. The district court was also permitted during sentencing to find prior bad acts by a preponderance of the evidence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3005 U.S. v. Dowty, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Revocation of Supervised Release; Within-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following the fifth revocation of his supervised release on assault convictions. Although the district court imposed a within-Guidelines range sentence, defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence given that his violation was based on a failure to participate in court-ordered therapy that defendant contended was caused by mitigating personal circumstances.
Where the district court considered all the relevant statutory factors and did not consider any impermissible factors, it did not abuse its discretion in choosing to impose a within-Guidelines sentence for defendant’s supervised release violation.
Judgment is affirmed.
Controlled Substances
Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and was sentenced at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s consideration of the statutory sentencing factors and argued that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Where defendant’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver that only permitted appeals from upward variances in sentencing, the court dismissed the appeal where defendant was sentenced at the bottom end of the guidelines range.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2061 U.S. v. O’Rourke, per curam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Drug Trafficking
Below-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Defendant contended that his below-Guidelines sentence, imposed upon defense counsel’s recommendation, was substantively unreasonable.
Where the district court imposed the sentence advocated for by defendant, any challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence was foreclosed.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2946 U.S. v. Wiggins, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Increase in Base Level; Below Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court increased defendant’s base offense level due to a prior state marijuana conviction and sentenced defendant to a below-Guidelines term. On appeal, defendant argued that his underlying state conviction was overbroad and therefore improperly used by the district court.
Where conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver constituted a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines, even where the state statute also encompassed hemp, the district court properly calculated defendant’s base offense level.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2430 U.S. v. Brandt, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Sentence; Trial Counsel
Defendant was sentenced to a 120-month term after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
While defendant’s ineffectiveness claims had to await collateral review, the court affirmed his sentence where the district court sufficiently considered the statutory factors without relying on any improper factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1024 U.S. v. Redmond, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Unregistered Firearm
Base Offense Level; Sentencing Enhancement
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to receipt/possession of an unregistered firearm. Defendant challenged the district court’s calculation of the base offense level and further argued that the district court erred in imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for destructive devices.
Where the weapon involved in the offense was too small to qualify as a “destructive device” under the statutory definition, the district court erred by imposing a sentencing enhancement that prejudiced defendant by increasing his Guidelines range.
Judgment is vacated and remanded.
21-3231 U.S. v. Bailey, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Possession with Intent
Supervised Release; Upward Departure
Defendant was convicted for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute while on supervised release. Defendant’s supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to a revocation term consecutive to a 63-month sentence on the possession conviction, after the district court departed upward based on an understated criminal history. Defendant challenged his possession sentence on appeal.
Where defendant had dozens of convictions that were too old to be scored as part of his criminal history, including domestic violence and assaults against law enforcement officers, the district court did not err in considering those offenses to find defendant demonstrated a history of violence and incorrigibility that warranted an upward departure.
Judgment is affirmed.
Supervised Release
Out-of-Court Statements; Unavailable Witness
Defendant appealed from the revocation of his supervised release for driving with a suspended license and committing domestic assault, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that defendant’s estranged girlfriend was an unavailable witness and admitting her out-of-court statements.
Where the record established that defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release by failing to report his citation for driving on a suspended license, that was sufficient to revoke defendant’s supervised release and any error in admitting defendant’s girlfriend’s statements was harmless.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2116 U.S. v. Corbett, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Career Offender; Drug Amount
Where co-defendants challenged their sentencing in a drug conspiracy, the district court did not err in classifying the first defendant as a career offender since his Iowa convictions for delivery of a controlled substance counted as predicate offenses, and the court could consider grand jury testimony at sentencing to determine the drug amounts, and the judgment is affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to show that the methamphetamine that the defendant was distributing was ice.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1696 U.S. v. Harris, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Civil Disorder Offense; Analogous Offense
Where a defendant charged with civil disorder challenged his sentence, the district court did not err in finding that the offense of obstructing an officer was sufficiently analogous for sentencing purposes.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1855 U.S. v. Montanez, Kobes, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Sentencing
Downward Variance; Formal Ruling
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty in a methamphetamine case, a formal ruling on the defendant’s request for a downward variance was not required since it was clear from the record that the district court considered and implicitly rejected the meth-purity variance argument, and the court properly recognized its discretion to make the sentence concurrent with a state sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2932 U.S. v. Stanger, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Drug Quantity; Constructive Possession
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to charges including drug and firearm offenses, the district court did not err in determining the amount of drugs attributable to the defendant as the evidence supported the conclusion that the defendant constructively possessed the drugs found in the vehicle that he was driving at the time of the arrest.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1964 U.S. v. Davis, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Enhancement; Obstruction Of Justice
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug case, the district court properly found that the defendant had committed perjury, so an enhancement for the obstruction of justice is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3021 U.S. v. Walton, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Manager Enhancement
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty in a drug conspiracy and money laundering case, the application of a manager or supervisor enhancement was supported by the record, and the sentence was substantively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2091 U.S. v. Lee, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Manager Enhancement
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a methamphetamine case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity, so the two-level enhancement was properly applied.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2122 U.S. v. Portz, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Reduction; Guilty Plea
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a third-point reduction to the offense level since his guilty plea came months after the deadline for plea notifications, and where the change interrupted the court’s trial schedule and resulted in a waste of judicial resources, and any error was harmless in light of the court’s explanation that it would have imposed the same sentence with or without the reduction.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3078 U.S. v. McAtee, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court committed both procedural and substantive error, the court adequately explained its sentencing decision, including its analysis of the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2252 U.S. v. Palkowitsch, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, so the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Traffic Stop
Probable Cause
Where a defendant argued that an officer unreasonably prolonged a traffic stop and that the vehicle search lacked probable cause, the traffic stop was based on a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed a moving violation, had an expired tag and obstructed license plate, and the officer’s detection of the smell of marijuana coming from the car provided probable cause for the warrantless search, so the judgment is affirmed.
21-2832 U.S. v. Muhammad, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Possession of a Firearm by Felon
Drug Trafficking; Sentencing Cross-Reference
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction for possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon. Police found a loaded gun in defendant’s bedroom where they also seized evidence of drug trafficking. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in applying a cross-reference for connection of the crime of conviction with another offense.
Where the cross-reference was applicable for mere possession and not just active use of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, the district court properly sentenced defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1914 U.S. v. Sewalson, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Possession of a Firearm by Felon
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor; Consecutive Sentences
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to wire fraud, possession of a firearm by a felon, and sexual exploitation of a minor, arguing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence running his federal sentence consecutive to his existing state court sentence.
Where defendant’s plea agreement waived his right to challenge the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
21-2080 U.S. v. Miller, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Warrantless Search
Consent
Where the government challenged an order suppressing items including a gun, drugs, bullets and a scale found during a search of an apartment that the defendant shared with his girlfriend, the district court erred by suppressing the evidence found during a warrantless search of a bag, and the sole lessee of the apartment, the defendant’s girlfriend, had actual and common authority over the apartment and consented to the search of the entire apartment, and the bag was in a common area, appeared to be a gender-neutral item and the officers could reasonably believe that she had authority over the bag and could consent to its search.
Judgment is reversed.
Witness Sequestration
Violation Of Order; Brady Violation
Where a defendant moved for a new trial based on a violation of a witness sequestration order, the record did not support the claim that the defendant was injured by an undefined discussion since the evidence in question was immaterial to the outcome of the case, and the judgment is affirmed since the government’s failure to disclose a DEA affidavit was not a Brady violation.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2033 U.S. v. Corey, Kobes, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Warrantless Search
Inevitable Discovery; Backpack
Where a defendant challenged the denial of her motion to suppress in a firearm case, even if the warrantless search of the defendant’s backpack was not a valid search incident to arrest, the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine since it would have been found during a lawful inventory search.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2089 U.S. v. Trogdon, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Employer-Employee
FMLA Retaliation
Age & Disability Discrimination; Hostile Work Environment
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claims of FMLA interference/retaliation, age and disability discrimination, and hostile work environment.
Where plaintiff had failed to show that she sustained losses due to interference with her FMLA rights for which she was entitled to recoverable damages, where defendant established that plaintiff’s termination was due to her numerous documented performance issues, and where plaintiff’s failure-to-promote claims were untimely under the statute of limitations, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendants.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Removal
Asylum; Timeliness
Where a petitioner from Guatemala challenged the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings, the challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent, and the petitioner admitted that his asylum application was untimely and failed to challenge the denial of his claim for Convention Against Torture relief.
Petition denied.
Negligence
Trip and Fall
Premises Liability
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff tripped and fell in the parking lot of one of defendant’s stores. The district court entered judgment for defendant after finding that plaintiff had failed to establish that the “lip” from the pavement to the sidewalk was a dangerous condition.
Where there were no facts presented by plaintiff that would allow a factfinder to infer that the difference in height between the parking lot pavement and the sidewalk represented a dangerous condition, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
