Minnesota Lawyer
Administrative Law
Social Security Disability
Denial of Benefits; ALJ Appointment
Where appellant challenged the denial of Social Security disability benefits, the acting commissioner was properly serving in her role when she ratified the appointment of the administrative law judge who oversaw the case, so the ALJ had authority over the case, and the judgment of the district court is reversed.
Judgment is reversed.
Social Security Disability
Denial Of Benefits; Treating Source Rule
Where appellant challenged the denial of disability insurance benefits, arguing that the administrative law judge erred in evaluating the opinion of her one-time treating doctor under Section 404.1520c, the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion since the regulation applied to claims like this filed after March 27, 2017, and explicitly abrogated the treating source rule.
Judgment is affirmed.
Social Security Disability
Residual Functioning Capacity; Sufficiency of Evidence
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment affirming defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s application for Social Security disability benefits. An ALJ ruled that plaintiff was not disabled because she had a residual functioning capacity to perform light work with limitations that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s rejection of the opinion of one of plaintiff’s treating physicians.
Where the physician merely provided a checkbox opinion that conflicted with his treatment notes and recommended treatment plan, the ALJ was justified in rejecting the opinion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Practice
Arbitration Award
Impartiality
Where appellants challenged the confirmation of an arbitration award against them, there was no evident partiality by the arbitrator, and the district court did not make a mistake in setting the attorney fee award or in concluding that the appellant’s affiliates were jointly liable for it.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
§1983
Prison Inmate; Failure to Protect from Attack
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff was incarcerated in a municipal correctional facility when he was attacked twice by a fellow inmate who attempted to collect a debt owed by plaintiff’s cellmate. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from the attacks. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference.
Where defendants considered information from the first attack and concluded that the situation did not rise to the level of a serious risk of bodily injury, there was no deliberate indifference simply because defendants inaccurately predicted that there would not be further incidents of violence.
Kelly, J., concurring: “And while the Eighth Amendment may not require recordkeeping by prison officials or impose liability for lack of recollection, the absence of documentation regarding prison decisions or prison officials’ inability to remember events central to their decisionmaking process may be relevant to determining the knowledge and subjective understanding of these officials.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Child Abuse Investigation
Unconstitutional Policy or Custom; Qualified Immunity
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and adverse grant of summary judgment on their claims against defendants. Plaintiffs’ foster child told a school nurse that plaintiffs had hit him. Although the allegations were found to be unfounded following investigation, plaintiffs filed suit against a wide range of state officials. The district court first dismissed the claims against state officials in their official capacity and state agencies. The district court finally granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining individual capacity claims, ruling that officials had reasonable suspicion to believe that abuse had occurred and thus were shielded by qualified immunity.
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for the reasons expressed by the district court.
Judgment is affirmed.
Contracts
Breach
Failure to Maintain Bridges; Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff filed suit alleging defendant had breached the parties’ contract by failing to maintain several bridges. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, ruling that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the 10-year limitations period applied because it was seeking an equitable remedy.
Where courts had previously declined to apply the 10-year limitations period for claims of specific performance, the district court properly applied the five-year breach of contract statute of limitations where more than five years had passed since plaintiff made written demand upon defendant to repair the bridges.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Child Pornography
Social Media Evidence; Sentencing
Where a defendant challenged the admission of social media evidence at his trial on child pornography offenses, the evidence was properly authenticated, and it was not erroneous for the district court to admit the records and let the jury decide whether the account belonged to the defendant, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, but the court erred in imposing a five-level sentencing enhancement under Section 4B1.5(a).
Judgment is affirmed; sentence vacated and remanded.
22-1740 U.S. v. Perez, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Conspiracy to Distribute
Bad Acts Evidence; Notice
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs, arguing that the district court erred in admitting bad acts testimony from an individual who was not involved in the charged conspiracy but began selling drugs with defendant several months after the conspiracy ended. Defendant alleged that the government failed to provide proper notice of the testimony as required by Rule 404(b)(3).
Where the testimony was relevant to show defendant’s knowledge of drug trafficking, the district court did not err in admitting the testimony, and any error was harmless in light of other substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1643 U.S. v. Abarca, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Conspiracy to Distribute
Motion for New Trial; Calculation of Guidelines Range
Defendant appealed from his conviction and sentence for distribution of drugs and conspiracy. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on the introduction of a stipulation from his codefendant’s prior conviction, the district court’s rejection of defendant’s proposed jury instruction, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conspiracy charge. Defendant also challenged the calculation of his Guidelines range.
Where the stipulation expressly applied only to the codefendant and where the government presented sufficient evidence of a conspiracy among defendant, his codefendant, and other parties, the district court correctly denied the motion for new trial, and there was clear and convincing evidence of drug quantities to support the district court’s Guidelines range calculation.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1379 U.S. v. Maxwell, Gruender, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Traffic Stop
Defendant appealed his conviction for drug and firearms offenses, after he entered a conditional guilty plea that reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and statements he made to police. On appeal, defendant argued that police lacked a reasonable basis to believe that he had committed a traffic violation and then unconstitutionally extended the traffic stop to facilitate a canine search.
Where officers testified to witnessing defendant failing to come to a complete stop at the intersection, they had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop, and the canine search occurred while officers were continuing to verify defendant’s documents and resolve conflicting statements he had made.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1708 U.S. v. Rutledge, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Drug Distribution
Plea Agreement; Appeal Waiver
Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on appeal. Defendant pled guilty to drug distribution pursuant to a plea deal under which defendant waived his right to appeal unless the district court imposed a sentence above the statutory maximum. The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence.
Where defendant’s issue fell within the scope of the appeal waiver, the appeal is dismissed.
Expert Testimony
Robbery; Sufficiency of Evidence
Where a defendant challenged his convictions in a robbery case, the district court did not err by allowing a police forensic expert to testify on firearm and bullet identification since her education and training demonstrated her competence on the topics, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for interference with commerce by robbery.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1573 U.S. v. Perry, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Calculation of Guidelines Range; Prior Controlled Substance Offenses
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range by finding that defendant’s prior North Dakota marijuana convictions qualified as controlled substance offenses.
Where courts were to look at the definition of the predicate offense at the time of conviction on that offense, rather than during the present sentencing, the district court correctly concluded that defendant’s prior convictions qualified as controlled substance offenses.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3751 U.S. v. Adzemovic, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Sentencing Enhancement; Prior Convictions
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court concluded that defendant had previously committed at least two controlled substance offenses or crimes of violence. On appeal, defendant argued that his prior marijuana convictions and assault conviction did not qualify as predicate offenses.
Where circuit precedent had previously held that defendant’s predicate offenses of conviction qualified as controlled substance offenses, the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1964 U.S. v. Ivery, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Sentencing Enhancement; Prior Felony Convictions
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the increase of his base offense level, after the district court concluded that defendant had two prior felony drug convictions. Defendant argued that his state felony drug convictions did not qualify as “controlled substance offenses” because “controlled substances” only included those listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Where there was no requirement that a substance banned by a state criminal offense also be listed as a controlled substance under federal law, the district court correctly counted defendant’s prior convictions.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1619 U.S. v. Fluckes, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Sentencing Enhancement; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, after law enforcement found defendant unresponsive in a vehicle containing drugs and a loaded firearm. Defendant challenged the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement for possessing the gun “in connection with” a felony drug offense.
Where simple possession of drugs could satisfy the requirements for a sentencing enhancement, the district court had sufficient evidence to infer that defendant’s firearm, when carried out in public with illegal drugs, could be used to facilitate his drug crimes.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1745 U.S. v. Johnson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Firearms Offenses
Right to Prepare for Trial; Duress/Coercion Jury Instructions
Defendant appealed his conviction for firearms offenses, stemming from a traffic stop and separate car chase. Defendant argued that standing orders limiting defendants’ access to sealed discovery documents denied him the constitutional right to prepare for trial and that the district court erred in denying his requested jury instructions on duress and coercion. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
Where the district court had good cause to impose restrictions on defendants’ ability to access sealed discovery, defendant’s rights were not violated, and there was no evidence to support defendant’s requested duress/coercion instruction. Defendant’s own admissions provided sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1623 U.S. v. Ladeaux, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Firearms Offenses
Sentencing Enhancement; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed the judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty plea to firearms offenses. Defendant challenged the district court’s application of a four-level sentencing enhancement for use or possession of a firearm in connection with drug distribution, arguing that there no evidence of a connection between the firearms and drugs.
Where the sentencing court could infer a connection based on the close proximity between firearms and drugs, the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1570 U.S. v. Dickerson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sexual Abuse of a Child
Expert Testimony; Statistical Studies of Child Sex Abuse Victims
Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses related to child sexual abuse. Defendant argued that the district court erred by admitting expert testimony concerning statistical studies of victims of child sexual abuse and the dynamics and credibility of sexual abuse disclosures. Defendant contended that this testimony improperly bolstered the credibility of the victims.
Where the expert expressly stated that she was testifying about child sexual abuse statistics and not opining as to whether sexual abuse occurred or whether the victims were telling the truth, there was no plain error in admitting the expert testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1390 U.S. v. Belt, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Sentencing
Reduction
Where a defendant challenged his reduced sentence, arguing that the district court should have reduced the sentence further, the judgment is affirmed because the court adequately considered the relevant factors and the parties’ arguments.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3319 U.S. v. Turner, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Employer-Employee
Restrictive Covenants
Breach; Entire Agreement Provision
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its complaint. Plaintiff, a provider of water, drainage, and fire protection services, acquired Minnesota Pipe and Equipment Company. MPE’s shareholders were parties to the asset purchase agreement and a separate noncompetition agreement. Defendant was one of the shareholders; given his longstanding customer relationships, plaintiff and defendant entered a separate employment agreement that incorporated restrictive covenants. Defendant became unhappy and went to work for a competitor. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of the employment agreement. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the noncompetition agreement was a later agreement and thus its entire agreement provision superseded defendant’s employment agreement.
Where there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the noncompetition and employment agreements covered different subject matter, the district court erred in granting dismissal of plaintiff’s breach and tortious interference claims.
Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Immigration Law
Asylum
Past Persecution
Where a petitioner from Honduras and her children sought review of an order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum and withholding of removal, substantial evidence supported the determination that the petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum since she did not show past persecution despite being a member of a cognizable social group, and she also did not show a well-founded fear of persecution.
Petition denied.
Asylum
Withholding of Removal; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Petitioners sought review of an order denying their appeal from an IJ’s rejection of petitioners’ request for asylum and withholding of removal.
Where petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies to challenge the agency’s denial of their application, the court considered petitioners’ challenges waived.
Petition is denied.
Removal
Motion to Reopen Proceedings; Notice to Appear
Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen the removal proceedings based on an allegedly defective notice to appear.
Where petitioner filed his motion past the deadline and his jurisdictional arguments were foreclosed by legal precedent, the BIA correctly denied the motion.
Petition is denied.
Withholding of Removal
Asylum; Waiver of Review
Petitioner sought review of the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
Where the petition failed to meaningfully challenge the BIA’s reasons for denying petitioner’s application, the court considered the petition waived. The court further found sufficient evidence to support the denial of petitioner’s application.
Petition is denied.
Insurance
Business Interruption Coverage
COVID-19; Denial of Claim
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of its complaint against defendant, plaintiff’s casualty insurer. Plaintiff filed suit alleging wrongful denial of business interruption coverage, after plaintiff temporarily restricted in-person services due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Where plaintiff’s business interruption did not result from a qualifying property loss or property damage, as the presence of virus did not satisfy the physicality requirement, defendant was entitled to deny coverage under the policy’s virus exclusion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Insurance
Employee Theft Clause
Covered Loss; Shipping Costs
Where insurer sought a declaration that it did not owe payment to insured company due to the employee theft clause of the relevant policy, the district court did not err in determining that the company suffered a covered loss resulting directly from an employee’s theft when the employee embezzled money by misrepresenting the price at which the company’s product was sold, and the court did not err in determining that the amount of covered loss included the product’s shipping costs.
Judgment is affirmed.
Property Insurance
Appraisal; Vacatur of Arbitration Award
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its complaint to vacate an arbitration award. Plaintiff owned properties insured by defendants. The properties suffered hail and wind damage. When plaintiff submitted a reimbursement claim, defendants disputed the amount owed for repairs. Plaintiff invoked the policy’s appraisal provision. A panel of appraisers agreed on a binding award, which was calculated in part based on a third-party repair company’s estimate. Plaintiff filed suit, arguing that the award used incorrect figures and measurements. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that plaintiff had asserted improper grounds for vacatur.
Where plaintiff had merely alleged factual errors in the appraisal award, the courts lacked authority to reconsider the merits of the award.
Judgment is affirmed.
Juvenile Law
Delinquency Proceedings
FJDA; Speedy Trial Provision
Where a juvenile argued that his federal juvenile delinquency proceedings should have been dismissed because he was not afforded a speedy trial as required by the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, the juvenile waived his right to appeal any speedy trial violation as part of his plea agreement, and the judgment is affirmed since his sentence was not plainly unreasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2005 U.S. v. D.B., Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Torts
Pedestrian Accident
FTCA
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her personal injury claim. A U.S. Postal Service vehicle allegedly ran over plaintiff’s foot. Plaintiff’s mother sent a claim form to the USPS. A year later, plaintiff’s counsel sent a demand letter. After the USPS denied liability, plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The district court agreed and dismissed the case.
Where the FTCA’s presentment requirement merely obligated a claimant to notify a federal agency of the maximum value of the asserted claim, and the statute also allowed claimants to recover more than originally sought based on newly discovered evidence, plaintiff had complied with administrative remedies by sending a demand letter with a range of damages described as a “very conservative estimate.”
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
