Minnesota Lawyer
Attorneys
Lawyer’s Suit Against County
Adverse Grant of Summary Judgment; Recusal
Plaintiff and his law firm appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal in favor of defendants and the denial of plaintiff’s recusal motion.
Where plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support his state and federal law claims, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1115 Ashford v. Hendrix, per curiam Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Bankruptcy
Default Judgment
Motion to Set Aside; Failure to Serve Adversary Complaint
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside a default judgment. Plaintiff had an agreement to purchase accounts receivable from Crossett Ford Lincoln, which filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. When plaintiff filed a proof of claim, the bankruptcy trustee filed an adversary complaint, ultimately obtaining default judgment. On appeal, plaintiff argued that it was entitled to set aside the judgment due to defects in service of the adversary complaint.
Where the trustee served plaintiff in a manner directed by plaintiff’s proof of claim and where the evidence showed that the adversary complaint was received by one of plaintiff’s employees, the service of process satisfied plaintiff’s due process rights.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
§1983
Adverse Summary Judgment; No Basis for Reversal
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his §1983 action.
Where the record contained no basis for reversal, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
§1983
Fatal Police Shooting; Excessive Force
Plaintiff, as personal representative of decedent’s estate, appealed the adverse jury verdict in her §1983 action asserting excessive force by defendant, a police officer, when he fatally shot decedent.
Where the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting special verdict questions to the jury and in declining to direct the jury to deliberate further or order a new trial, as the jury’s answers to the special verdict questions could be reconciled with one another, plaintiff was not entitled to relief as the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Sufficiency of Evidence; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for drug and firearms offenses, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the evidence supported a finding of constructive possession of a firearm and drugs packaged for individual sale, the jury had a basis to convict defendant, and his sentence was reasonable where the district court imposed the sentence requested by defense counsel.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1727 U.S. v. Golden, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Calculation of Guidelines Range; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the judgment of sentence entered following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s calculation of the advisory Guidelines range and argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Where the record revealed no erroneous factual determination or legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and where the district court gave defendant a more favorable sentence than the one he asked for, the district court’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. However, the district court erred in failing to attach a statement of reasons in support of its rulings on disputed portions of the PSR.
Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
21-3299 U.S. v. Ossana, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Possession of a Firearm by Felon
Armed Career Criminal Act; Enhanced Statutory Minimum Sentence
Defendant appealed the application of an enhanced statutory minimum sentence under the ACCA, following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon.
Where defendant’s presentencing report expressly stated that defendant’s prior convictions were based on three distinct drug sales, the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement under the ACCA.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1050 U.S. v. Buford, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Motion to Suppress; Upward Variance
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. After the district court denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, defendant conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his suppression motion and argued that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to justify its decision to impose an upward variance.
Where postal inspectors followed policy regarding unclaimed packages and then obtained consent to search from the sender, there was no unlawful seizure or search of the package mailed to defendant, and the district court explained the upward variance by citing defendant’s numerous disciplinary infractions committed while detained pending sentencing.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1197 U.S. v. Flores, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm
Motion to Suppress; Execution of Arrest Warrant
Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, challenging the denial of his suppression motion. Defendant’s conviction stemmed from law enforcement’s execution of an arrest warrant for another individual believed to be staying at a residence where defendant was staying as an overnight guest.
Where the officers’ testimony established that the homeowner verbally consented to a search of his residence, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3890 U.S. v. Mitchell, Grasz, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Employer-Employee
Disability Discrimination
Retaliation; FMLA
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant, her former employer, on plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA, ICRA, and FMLA. Plaintiff’s supervisors began taking issue with plaintiff’s erratic work schedule, caused in part due to her multiple sclerosis. After advising plaintiff of her rights under the FMLA, defendant ultimately terminated plaintiff due to performance deficiencies.
Where defendant presented robust documentation in support of its claim that plaintiff was terminated for performance issues, plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims failed when she could not show that the proffered reason for her termination was a pretext for discrimination.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Asylum
Convention Against Torture; Challenge to BIA Jurisdiction
Petitioners sought review of an order of the BIA, which dismissed their appeal from an IJ’s decision denying petitioners asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Where petitioner’s challenges to the BIA’s jurisdiction were foreclosed by precedent, the court affirmed the IJ’s decision as there was not sufficient evidence to establish that petitioners suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution due to a protected status.
Petition is denied.
Asylum
Convention Against Torture; Cognizable Social Group
Petitioner appealed the denial of her application for asylum and protection under the CAT, alleging that she fled El Salvador after her partner was murdered by a gang for refusing to pay extortion money and after petitioner was also extorted and threatened by the same gang when she opened her own business. Petitioner argued that she was part of the cognizable social group of “female business owners.”
Where petitioner failed to show that her status as a “female business owner” was a central reason for her fear of future persecution if returned to El Salvador because there was no evidence that the gang targeted petitioner because she was a female business owner, she was not entitled to asylum.
Petition is denied.
