Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Rights
§1983
Adverse Grant of Summary Judgment; Basis for Reversal
Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in his §1983 complaint.
Where the record contained no basis for reversal, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Commitment
Restriction to ‘Healthy Diet’; Summary Judgment
Plaintiff, a patient in Iowa’s Civil Commitment Unit for sexual offenders, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendants had improperly restricted him to a “healthy diet.”
Where the record contained no disputed material facts, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2964 Huston v. Garcia, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Criminal Law
Carjacking
Use of Sentencing Data; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to carjacking and brandishing a firearm. During sentencing, the district court referenced data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Judiciary Sentencing Information tool to compare defendant to other offenders who had committed similar offenses and had the same guidelines offense level and criminal history category and denied a joint motion for a downward variance.
Where the district court was not barred from using public information not specific to defendant, there was no error in the use of JSIN data or failing to disclose its use to the defense prior to sentencing, and any error interpreting the data did not prejudice defendant because its use did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing hearing as the district court focused on defendant’s offense and aggravating factors.
Stras, J., dissenting: “The district court also stated that the data was “information [it] consider[ed,] . . . a data point . . . [to] avoid[] unwarranted sentencing disparities.” Having all but admitted that the search influenced its decision to impose a 179-month sentence, I would remand for resentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (requiring district courts to consider “unwarranted sentenc[ing] disparities among defendants”). In the language of the plain-error standard, it made a “clear” or “obvious” error that, by the court’s own words, affected McDaniel’s substantial rights.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Child Pornography
Motion to Suppress; Warrantless Seizure
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. While defendant was on a camping trip with his stepdaughter, A.B., and several of her friends, the friends found text messages on A.B.’s phone indicating that defendant had engaged in sexual activity with A.B. The friends alerted their parents, who contacted police. Officers obtained defendant’s phone, secured a warrant, and found sexually provocative images. On appeal, defendant argued that his phone was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Where police had probable cause to believe defendant’s phone contained evidence of a crime, based on the text messages between defendant and A.B., the fact that the messages had been deleted from A.B.’s phone, and A.B.’s concern about getting defendant “in trouble,” the police had reasonable concern that defendant might try to destroy evidence and therefore exigent circumstances supported seizure of the phone.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2705 U.S. v. Shrum, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Conspiracy to Distribute
Reasonableness of Sentence; Below-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
Where the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence, it did not abuse its discretion after correctly calculating the Guidelines range and considering all relevant statutory sentencing factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3001 U.S. v. Rouell, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas.
Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
Unreasonable Force Resulting in Bodily Injury; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant, the former sheriff of Franklin County, was convicted of depriving jail detainees of their constitutional rights by subjecting them to unreasonable force that resulted in bodily injury. Defendant appealed his conviction, challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings. Defendant also appealed his sentence that included a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement that the district court imposed after finding defendant attempted to influence the testimony of multiple witnesses.
Where evidence that one of the detainees was shackled was relevant to contextualize the reasonableness of the force employed by defendant, the district court did not err in admitting the evidence, and the admission of the jail’s use-of-force and inmate rights’ policies was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s willful use of unreasonable force. The sentence was reasonable where there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant attempted to influence witness testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1699 U.S. v. Boen, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Career Offender Designation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses. Defendant argued that the district court misclassified him as a career offender and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Where case law rejected defendant’s assertion that the statutory definition of a “controlled substances offense” did not include inchoate offenses, the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the Guidelines range based on defendant’s career offender designation and imposing a below-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1130 U.S. v. Anders, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Motion to Suppress; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendants appealed their convictions, challenging the denial of their motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Defendants conceded that police lawfully stopped their vehicles for commercial inspection but improperly exceeded the scope of the inspection.
Where police developed probable cause to further the inspection of defendants’ vehicle due to a lack of appropriate documentation and safety violations that demonstrated defendants were not actually engaged in commercial trucking, officers did not impermissibly expand the scope of the inspection and the evidence found during the search was admissible.
Judgment is affirmed.
Drug and Weapons Offenses
Career Offender Designation; Predicate Offenses
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for drug and weapons offenses. At sentencing, defendant was designated a career offender due to two prior state drug convictions. On appeal, defendant argued that his state convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses.
Where a substance controlled under state law did not need to be controlled under federal law for a state drug conviction to qualify as a predicate offense, the district court properly designated defendant a career offender.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2304 U.S. v. Bennett, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Failure to Register as Sex Offender
Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised released imposed for a conviction of failing to register as a sex offender, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court could properly consider defendant’s behavior while on supervised release, which included being discharged from two halfway houses and conducting criminal activity in a hotel room paid for with “second chance funds,” there was no abuse of discretion in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2466 U.S. v. Nelson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Interstate Travel for Racketeering
Supervised Release; Revocation Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release following a conviction for interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Defendant argued that the district court committed procedural error by considering improper factors.
Where the district court never stated that it relied on specific improper statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of discretion for imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2317 U.S. v. MacMillan, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Possession of Firearm by Felon
Motion to Suppress; Warrantless Search
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm found during a warrantless search of his hotel room. After arresting defendant for assaulting his wife with a firearm and taking her vehicle, police noticed that several of the wife’s belongings were missing from her car. Believing that communal property laws allowed defendant’s wife to enter defendant’s hotel room, police gained access from a maintenance worker, and a firearm was ultimately found under the mattress.
Where the evidence clearly showed that the officer did not enter the room or participate in the search that uncovered the gun, the district court properly denied the suppression motion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession of Firearm During Drug Trafficking
Motion for Sentence Reduction; First Step Act
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. Defendant had pled guilty in 2006 to two counts of possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Under the stacking rules in effect, the district court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence for the second conviction. When the First Step Act changed the rules to apply stacking only when a first conviction occurred in a separate case, defendant moved to reduce his sentence even though the First Step Act did not apply retroactively.
Where a non-retroactive change in the law cannot contribute to a finding of compelling or extraordinary reasons for a sentence reduction, the district court correctly denied defendant’s motion.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3212 U.S. v. Berglund, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Unlawful Reentry; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentences imposed for unlawful reentry and revocation of his supervised release. Defendant argued that the sentences were substantively unreasonable both individually and in combination.
Where the sentences were within the statutory maximums and the district court considered all relevant statutory sentencing factors, it did not abuse its sentencing discretion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Supervised Release
Revocation; Special Conditions
Defendant challenged a special condition added to his supervised release, following the revocation of a prior term of supervised release for substance abuse violations. The special condition barred defendant from contact with minors, but made exception for defendant’s biological and legally adopted children. The district court denied defendant’s request to also include his stepchildren.
Where the special condition also permitted defendant to have contact with minors with the consent of the probation office, the district court did not impose an unreasonable restraint on defendant as defendants could be required to obtain permission from a probation officer before visiting their children.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2119 U.S. v. Hutson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Wire Fraud
Money Laundering; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his convictions for wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, arising from his scheme that stole millions of dollars from investors, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Where defendant’s appellate arguments offered no legal authority, the court affirmed his convictions.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1869 U.S. v. Winer, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Employer-Employee
Administrative Review
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision; Timeliness
Petitioner sought review of the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board’s dismissal of her petition for administrative review as untimely.
Where there was no basis for relief, the court affirmed.
Petition is denied.
Immigration
Asylum
Political Persecution; Sufficiency of Evidence
Petitioner appealed the denial of his application for asylum. Petitioner claimed that gangs in his native Honduras had persecuted him in the past and thus he feared persecution if he was returned to Honduras. An immigration judge denied petitioner’s application, finding that any harm he had suffered bore no connection to his political opinions.
Where there was no evidence that petitioner had expressed any political opinion or anti-corruption sentiment and there was no evidence that gangs targeted petitioner based on their believe that petitioner held such opinions, the IJ correctly found that petitioner’s harm flowed from his apolitical decision to refuse to work for the gangs.
Petition is denied.
Withholding of Removal
Asylum; Sufficiency of Evidence
Petitioner sought review of an order of the BIA. The BIA dismissed petitioner’s appeal of an IJ’s decision denying petitioner’s request for asylum and withholding of removal.
Where there was substantial evidence to find that petitioner did not suffer past persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, petitioner’s request was properly denied.
Petition is denied.
Insurance
Homeowners’ Insurance
Assignment of Claim; Breach of Contract
Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant. Several homeowners had hired plaintiffs to repair their homes. Prior to any repair work, defendant had paid the actual cash value of the damage. The homeowners assigned their rights to payment to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a claim with defendant, which refused payment. Plaintiffs then filed the present breach of contract lawsuit. The district court granted defendant summary judgment, ruling that the homeowners’ assignments were invalid under applicable Nebraska law.
Where Nebraska law did not permit an assignee standing to assert a first-party bad faith claim and where the assignment form did not assign the right to pursue a post-loss insurance claim, the district court correctly concluded, based on written documentation and oral parol evidence, that the agreements were too indefinite to create a valid assignment.
Judgment is affirmed.
