Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Practice
ERISA
Arbitration Awards; Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Where plaintiff, who participated in defendant’s 401(k) plan, brought actions to confirm their arbitration awards after the defendant’s investments suffered financial losses, and the defendant appealed the district court’s confirmation of the awards, the court lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction under either the Federal Arbitration Act or 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, so the awards are vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of diversity jurisdiction.
Vacated; remanded.
Summary Judgment
Employment Discrimination
Where an appellant challenged the grant of adverse summary judgment in her employment discrimination case, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Revocation Sentence
Consecutive Imposition
Where a defendant challenged the length of his revocation sentence and its consecutive imposition, the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors, and the court did not err procedurally by imposing the consecutive sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2092 U.S. v. Boyum, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Criminal History; Prior Harassment Convictions
Where a defendant appealed his sentence in a child pornography case, the defendant’s state court convictions for harassment were not “relevant conduct” in the prosecution for possession of child pornography, and the convictions were properly counted in the calculation of his criminal history.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3505 U.S. v. Crum, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Drug Quantity; Enhancement
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug trafficking case, the prior drug convictions met the relevant criteria for an enhancement, and the district court’s drug quantity determination was not clearly erroneous, so the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1666 U.S. v. Neeman, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Sentencing
Enhancement; Extortion Offenses
Where a defendant challenged the sentence that he received after he threatened to “kill some” government employees and assaulted two guards, the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement because the defendant’s extortion offenses were motivated by the fact that his victims were government officials even if he had other motivations for the offenses, and the court did not err in applying an enhancement based on the fact that the defendant’s conduct created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1307 U.S. v. Feeback, Stras, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Vulnerable Victim; Child Pornography
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a child pornography case, the district court did not err in applying a vulnerable victim enhancement because the evidence showed that the defendant knew or should have known about the victim’s mental health issues, and the sentence was not unreasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2393 U.S. v. Ekman, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant appealed after the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 36 months in prison, the sentence was not unreasonable, and the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2532 U.S. v. Canady, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sexual Assault
Prior Bad Acts; Cautionary Instructions
Where a defendant in a sexual assault case argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of prior sexual assaults on other prisoners who were transported by the defendant, the evidence showed that the conduct was willful and that the defendant had motive and opportunity to commit the offenses, and the court limited the number of witnesses and gave appropriate cautionary instructions, so the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Cancellation of Removal
Exceptional Hardship to Children; Exercise of Discretion
Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for cancellation of removal, arguing that the BIA misapplied the standards for finding exceptional hardship to his three children who were U.S. citizens.
Where the court lacked jurisdiction to order the BIA to implement a “best interests” analysis, it found no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s evaluation of the cumulative factors for determining exceptional hardship.
Petition is dismissed.
Insurance
Life Insurance
Competing Claims to Proceeds; Equitable Portion
Defendants appealed the judgment of the district court that granted defendants an equitable portion of proceeds on a life insurance policy issued on the life of Charles Smith, defendants’ former employee. Defendant Kansas City Chrome Shop was the named beneficiary of Smith’s policy. Smith stopped working for KCCS in 1994. However, the insurance policy was renewed in 2010 without Smith’s consent, with KCCS’s owner paying all premiums. After Smith’s death, his estate asked for the policy proceeds, with defendants making a competing claim. The district court granted partial summary judgment for the estate, ruling that because KCCS was dissolved in 1994, it could not qualify as a living beneficiary, but its owner had an equitable claim to a portion of the proceeds.
Where a state court had already ruled that KCCS did not qualify as a living beneficiary, the district court properly applied collateral estoppel to deny its claim to the policy proceeds, and correctly found that there was no agreement between Smith and defendants regarding the use of the policy to repay loans.
Judgment is affirmed.
