8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 24, 2022

Administrative Law

MSHA

Mining Accident

Where the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued an order stating that a mining company had failed to keep a walkway in good condition after a worker was injured, and the mining company sought review of the commission’s conclusions on reckless disregard and unwarranted failure, and the secretary sought the imposition of civil penalties and then cross petitioned for review of conclusions regarding flagrant designation and individual liability, the company’s petition is denied, and the cross petition is granted since the secretary’s definition of reckless was reasonable, and substantial evidence supported the finding that the company acted recklessly.

Petition for review denied. Cross petition granted.

21-1334 Northshore Mining Company v. Secretary of Labor, Smith, J. Petition for review of an order of the Federal Mine Safety & Health Administration.

SSDI

Treating Provider Opinions

Residual Functional Capacity

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s decision upholding the denial of her application for SSDI. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred in failing to include plaintiff’s inability to follow detailed instructions in the hypothetical question put to the vocational experts, and further erred in determining the weight to afford to the testimony of plaintiff’s providers.

Where the ALJ had only found a moderate limitation in plaintiff’s ability to follow instructions, the vocational expert properly opined that plaintiff could perform jobs existing in the national economy that involved detailed but not complicated or intricate instruction, and the ALJ’s credibility determinations were based on the fact that plaintiff’s providers were not acceptable medical sources who could be afforded controlling weight.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-3691 Galloway v. Kijakazi, Wollman, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

Civil Practice

RICO

Res Judicata

Where appellant challenged the dismissal of his Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act action, the district court did not err in dismissing the action as barred by res judicata.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-3773 Healy v. Fox, Gruender, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.

Civil Rights

Involuntary Commitment

Sex Offender Treatment; §1983

Plaintiff, an individual involuntarily committed to sex offender treatment, appealed from the adverse summary judgment entered in his §1983 action.

Where the evidence raised no genuine issue of material fact, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-3706 Carroll v. McAllister, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.

Criminal Law

Child Pornography

Sufficiency of Evidence; Application of Sentencing Guidelines

Defendant appealed from his conviction on child pornography offenses and sentence of 97 months’ imprisonment, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines. Specifically, defendant argued that the government had failed to prove that he knowingly received or possessed child pornography found on his devices.

Where the metadata from the files found on defendant’s devices supported the inference that the user of the devices either knew the content of the files or had accessed or opened the files, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant knowingly received or possessed child pornography, and there was no error in the district court’s application of the Guidelines where it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the correct range.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-2684 U.S. v. Golden, Gruender, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.

Drug Distribution

Motion to Exclude Evidence; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction for heroin distribution. Defendant challenged the denial of several of his motions to exclude certain evidence. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and contended that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a 10-year sentence.

Where evidence of victims’ overdoses was intrinsic to prove that the substance defendant distributed was heroin, the jury heard sufficient evidence to convict defendant, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward during sentencing where the preponderance of the evidence showed that defendant was responsible for a fatal overdose.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-2827 U.S. v. Watley, Grasz, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.

Drug Offenses

Motion to Suppress Evidence; ACCA

Defendant, who entered a conditional guilty plea to drug offenses, appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence in his case, as well as the sentence imposed following his classification as an armed career criminal and the calculation of his Guidelines range.

Although the canine search may have been unlawful, the district court correctly denied defendant’s suppression motion where officers relied in good faith on then-current legal precedent upholding canine searches through interior doors. However, the district court erred in sentencing defendant under the ACCA where he did not have the required predicate drug offenses because one of defendant’s convictions was under an overbroad state statute.

Kelly, J., concurring: “I agree that the motion to suppress was properly denied under the good faith exception, but I would find that the drug dog sniff of Apartment 10 was a violation of Perez’s Fourth Amendment rights.”

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

21-2130 U.S. v. Perez, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Admission of Prior Felony Conviction; Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed from his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, challenging the admission of his prior felony firearms conviction. Defendant also challenged the reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district court.

Where defendant’s prior conviction was only mentioned in passing during trial and where the district court properly instructed the jury that the conviction could not be used as evidence of guilt, the admission of prior bad acts evidence was harmless, and the district court did not err in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence after proper consideration of sentencing factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-2413 U.S. v. Barbee, Kobes, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Possession of Firearm by Prohibited Person

Brady Claim; Entrapment Instruction

Defendant appealed from his conviction on firearms offenses, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to give an entrapment instruction to the jury. On appeal, defendant also raised a Brady claim and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Where the government’s efforts in setting up the arranged gun transaction simply offered defendant the opportunity to commit the crime which defendant voluntarily availed himself of, he was not entitled to an entrapment instruction, and the government did not commit a Brady violation by failing to disclose the name of a witness who at most could have been used for impeachment purposes on immaterial issues.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-2769 U.S. v. Hayes, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

Search Warrant

Probable Cause; Good Faith Exception

Where a defendant in an illegal firearm case sought to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence, the district court properly found that even if the warrant was not supported by probable cause, the good faith exception applied, so the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-3031 U.S. v. Hay, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

Sentencing

Appeal Waiver

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to a drug offense, the plea agreement included an appeal waiver that was valid, enforceable and applicable to the issues raised on appeal, so the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1753 U.S. v. Mitchell, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.

Sentencing
Mitigation Factors

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to child pornography charges, the district court did not plainly err by considering the defendant’s mitigation arguments at resentencing, and the court properly discussed the relevant factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-2718 U.S. v. Winnick, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

Sentencing

Substantive Reasonableness

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after being found guilty of sexually assaulting a cellmate, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to properly weigh the sentencing factors, and the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-1702 U.S. v. Anderson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.

Tax Fraud

Restitution; Turnover of Inmate Trust Account Funds

Defendant appealed from the district court’s grant of the government’s motion for a turnover of funds contained in defendant’s inmate trust account to satisfy his restitution obligation under his sentence for tax fraud and failure to appear. Defendant contended that the funds in his account were loans from family and friends to afford legal counsel.

Where defendant did not claim in the district court that the funds were loaned to him by family, the district court did not err in holding an evidentiary hearing to determine that defendant had sole ownership of the funds in his inmate trust account.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1242 U.S. v. Osman, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

Employer-Employee

Constructive Termination

Discrimination; Retaliation

Plaintiff, an Egyptian national and practicing Muslim, was hired by defendants as a surgeon in an associate consultant position, a temporary role that could become permanent. A 360-degree review of plaintiff’s performance uncovered multiple red flags, including multiple allegations of sexual harassment. Plaintiff ultimately resigned when the personnel committee recommended his termination. Plaintiff filed suit accusing defendants of discrimination and retaliation, but the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.

Where plaintiff failed to present evidence of similarly situated, non-African or Egyptian or non-Muslim surgeons who received preferential treatment because plaintiff’s comparators had not been accused of sexual harassment, which defendants considered a unique and more serious offense, his discrimination claims failed as a matter of law.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-3881 Said v. Dearani, Grasz, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

Immigration

Removal

Inadmissible Upon Reentry; Sufficiency of Evidence

Petitioner appealed from the BIA’s order upholding an immigration judge’s determination that found petitioner inadmissible upon reentry.

Where the evidence was sufficient to support the IJ’s decision, the court affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

21-2748 Siddiqui v. Garland, per curiam. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

U-visa

Motion for Reconsideration; Timeliness

Petitioner appealed from the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his pending nonimmigrant U-visa.

Where petitioner failed to raise any argument to show that the agency erred in denying petitioner’s reconsideration motion as untimely, the court denied the petitioner for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Petition is denied.

22-1094 Ortega v. Garland, per curiam. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.