Minnesota Lawyer
Administrative Law
Servicemember Vaccination Requirements
Denial of Religious Exemptions; Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs, a group of servicemembers in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard, appealed the denial of their motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The USAF required all servicemembers to receive COVID-19 vaccines, subject to certain exemptions. Plaintiffs filed suit, challenging the denial of their requests for religious exemptions from the vaccination requirement. Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief barring the Air Force from discharging them or denying them career or training opportunities.
Where plaintiffs became members of a certified class in another case in Ohio that granted them the injunctive relief they sought in the present case, the court dismissed the appeal as moot.
Stras, J., concurring: “The 2023 Defense Authorization Act required the Secretary of Defense to ‘rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19.’ James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 525, 136 Stat. 2395, 2571 (2022). The Air Force discontinued the practice shortly thereafter, which means the plaintiff-airmen do not need relief from a mandate that no longer exists. I would not say anything more.”
Appeal is dismissed.
22-2058 Roth v. Austin, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Civil Rights
Eighth Amendment
Sexual Assault by Corrections Officer; Prison Inmates
Defendant appealed the adverse jury verdict entered against him. Plaintiffs sued defendant under §1983, alleging that he violated their Eighth Amendment rights by sexually assaulting them while they were inmates at the correctional facility where defendant served as a corrections officer. After the jury’s verdict, defendant unsuccessfully moved for a new trial or remittitur. Defendant challenged various district court rulings on appeal.
Where the identical damages awarded to each plaintiff indicated that there was minimal jury confusion from the consolidated trial, the district court properly denied defendant’s motion for new trial or remittitur given the severity of defendant’s conduct.
Judgment is affirmed.
Contracts
Fraudulent Transfer
Adverse Judgment; Basis for Reversal
Defendants appealed the entry of judgment for plaintiff on its fraudulent transfer claim.
Where the court found no basis for reversal, it affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Child Pornography
Jury Selection/Instructions; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple offenses of child exploitation and child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the jury selection, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the district court.
Although jurors expressed their emotional discomfort in reviewing the disturbing evidence in the case, that did not require excusing those jurors for cause where those jurors never specifically identified reservations or uncertainty over remaining impartial, and there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction as the jury could find that the victims were minors at the time of the offense and that defendant was the individual who distributed the child pornography.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1182 U.S. v. Nosley, Gruender, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Unlawful Possession of Weapons; Sentencing Enhancements
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for maintaining a drug premises and added four criminal history points for defendant’s juvenile offenses within the past five years.
Where defendant admitted to having a room in his residence as his “office,” which contained dozens of pounds of marijuana, there was sufficient evidence to support the two-level enhancement, and the district court did not err in applying criminal history points for juvenile offenses because they fell within the five-year look-back period. The district court properly exercised its sentencing discretion to sentence defendant to a within-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1624 U.S. v. Rios, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
ACCA Sentencing Enhancement; Qualifying Prior Convictions
The government appealed the district court’s decision not to impose an enhanced sentence under the ACCA upon defendant, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court ruled that defendant’s prior state felony convictions did not qualify as serious drug offenses because the Minnesota state statute criminalizing MDMA was broader than the federal statute because Minnesota law included isomers not listed in the federal statute. On appeal, the government argued that the district court should have deferred to the agency’s interpretation of “isomers” to find the Minnesota and federal statutes equivalent.
Where the Minnesota statute was interpreted as penalizing possession of all isomers of MDMA, it was broader in scope than the federal equivalent statute and the district court correctly declined to apply defendant’s prior convictions as predicate offenses under the ACCA.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1380 U.S. v. Heard, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Doty, J.
Felon in Possession of Ammunition
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Reasonable Suspicion
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and frisk. A salvage lot owner called police about a suspicious person on the property. An officer responded and found defendant on the property. Defendant told the officer that he was waiting for the lot to open because he believed his stolen car was there. The officer concluded that defendant was lying when he admitted he had not reported his vehicle stolen. Defendant attempted to flee when the officer tried to frisk him. The officer conducted a search incident to arrest and found a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition.
Where defendant’s clothing matched the police report and he was the only individual present on the property, and defendant gave odd or inconsistent explanations for his presence, the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and could frisk defendant after he began acting suspiciously and reached for objects in his pockets.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2110 U.S. v. Stokes, Grasz, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Within-Guidelines Sentence; Use of Suspended State Sentences
Defendant appealed the within-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court erred in counting suspended state sentences in calculating his criminal history and failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence.
Where the government presented documentation to establish the date that defendant was placed on probation for his state law criminal offenses, the district court did not err in including them in the criminal history calculation, and defendant’s remaining arguments were barred by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement.
Judgment is affirmed.
Supervised Release
Revocation; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.
Where the district court considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, there was no abuse of discretion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Wire Fraud
Money Laundering; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction for wire fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Defendant was involved in an international scheme to scam victims out of investment money. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Where multiple victims testified that defendant promised them that their investments would be safe and guaranteed returns, the government presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction by showing that defendant had no intent to safeguard or invest the money as defendant spent the funds on personal expenses, and by presenting evidence that defendant attempted to convince victims that the federal government had no jurisdiction over defendant’s organization.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1324 U.S. v. Peachey, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Immigration
Asylum
CAT; Sufficiency of Evidence
Petitioners sought review of the denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioners argued that they had established past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to El Salvador.
Where the evidence of threats against petitioners did not rise to the level of persecution, their application for asylum was properly denied.
Judgment is affirmed.
Asylum
Withholding of Removal; Jurisdiction
Petitioner sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge rejected petitioner’s assertion that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings.
Where precedent foreclosed petitioner’s argument that his purportedly defective notice to appear undermined the immigration court’s jurisdiction, the court dismissed the petition for review.
Petition is dismissed.
