8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Oct. 5, 2022

Civil Rights

Pro Se Complaint

Court Orders

Where appellant challenged the dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint for failure to comply with court orders, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1610 Walker v. Shafer, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.

Criminal Law

Revocation of Supervised Release

Sentencing Challenge; Prior Bad Acts

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of defendant’s supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court erred in relying on a disputed allegation that defendant assaulted his girlfriend and by erroneously considering defendant’s prior arrests for domestic assault as convictions.

Where the record demonstrated that the district court based its judgment only upon defendant’s stipulated violations of supervised release, it did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1679 U.S. v. Ross-Garner, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Sentencing

Appeal Waiver

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, the plea agreement included an appeal waiver that was valid and enforceable, so the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

21-2724 U.S. v. Hardwict, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.

Sentencing

Appeal Waiver

Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after he pled guilty in a bank robbery case, the plea agreement included an appeal waiver that was valid and enforceable, and his challenge fell within the scope of the waiver, so the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed.

22-1285 U.S. v. Parker, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Sentencing

Base Offense Level

Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a felon in possession case, the defendant’s argument was foreclosed by the decision of a prior panel, and the district court did not err in calculating his base offense level, so the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1132 U.S. v. Rockwood, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

Sentencing

Probation; Eligibility

Where a defendant challenged her sentence in a methamphetamine case, the defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation, and the district court properly excluded probation as a sentence, so the judgment is affirmed since the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1208 U.S. v. Fish, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.

Sentencing

Substantive Reasonableness

Where a defendant challenged a within-guidelines sentence imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-2017 U.S. v. Manuel, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/10/222017U.pdf

Sentencing

Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness

Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after the revocation of supervised release, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1984 U.S. v. Mendez, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.

Violation of Supervised Release

Upward Sentencing Variance; Substantive Reasonableness

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. Defendant stipulated to eight violations of the conditions of supervised release, after defendant had committed other violations on six prior occasions. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in varying upward during sentencing when a lesser sentence would have been sufficient.

Where the district court cited defendant’s long history of violations of supervised release, it did not abuse its discretion in varying upward at sentencing to impose consequences for defendant’s disregard for the rules of her supervised release.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1004 U.S. v. Michels, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

Employer-Employee

Discrimination

Summary Judgment

Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment discrimination suit.

Where the record demonstrated no issues of material fact, the district court properly entered summary judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

22-1611 Mwassa v. Presbyterian Homes & Services, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J.

Immigration

Removal

Cancellation

Where a petitioner from El Salvador petitioned for review of an order affirming the denial of his application for the cancellation of removal, the petitioner failed to raise his argument to the Board of Immigration, so the petition for review is dismissed.

Petition denied.

21-1865 Segovia-Yanes v. Garland, per curiam. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Indian Law

State Tax

Preemption; Non-Member Activity

Where a district court entered summary judgment in favor of a Sioux Indian tribe based on its conclusion that federal law preempted the imposition of a state tax on non-member activity on the reservation, the judgment is reversed and remanded because the court erred in finding that the excise tax was preempted through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act under the relevant balancing test, and the Indian Trader Statutes did not preempt the excise tax either expressly or under the Bracker test.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

20-3441 Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Houdyshell, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.