Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Rights
Unlawful Discrimination
Assault; IIED
Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment dismissal of his discrimination, assault, and IIED claims. Plaintiff visited one of defendant’s stores where he was verbally berated by an employee who began shouting derogatory statements to plaintiff. The store manager and district manager refused to fire the employee, waiting 11 days to do so after being ordered to by defendant’s regional HR manager after defendant was contacted by plaintiff’s counsel. However, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent and no basis for tort liability because the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment.
Where defendant had policies prohibiting discrimination and there was no evidence it intentionally or negligently hired someone known to harbor racial bias and where the employee previously had a stellar performance record, there was no basis to impose liability upon defendant for the employee’s actions.
Judgment is affirmed.
Constitutional Law
Firearm Rights
Convictions in Multiple States; Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit. From 1992 to 1996, plaintiff incurred several felony convictions in Minnesota and Iowa. After rehabilitating himself, plaintiff successfully petitioned a Minnesota court to restore his firearm rights and obtained a Minnesota firearms permit. However, no federally licensed firearms dealer could sell him a firearm due to his outstanding Iowa convictions. Plaintiff sought an order directing the FBI to correct information stating that he was ineligible to possess a firearm in Minnesota. The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Minnesota’s restoration of rights statute did not affect his Iowa convictions and thus plaintiff remained ineligible to purchase a firearm under federal law.
Where federal law prohibited a person “convicted in any court” from possessing a firearm, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to relief under circuit precedent as his Iowa convictions remained in effect.
Judgment is affirmed.
Contracts
Breach
Referral Contracts; Adequacy of Verdicts
The parties cross-appealed the district court’s rulings on the parties’ post-verdict motions. Plaintiff, a farmer with marketing experience, was retained by defendant to help sign up other farmers to defendant’s MDL against Syngenta alleging financial injuries to corn farmers arising from Syngenta’s commercialization of genetically modified corn without Chinese government approval, which resulted in China’s ban on imported U.S. genetically modified corn. Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that he was owed money under an oral agreement after defendant ultimately settled the MDL. The jury awarded plaintiff $175,000 without prejudgment interest. The district court denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on damages.
Where defendant gave an attorney apparent authority and discretion to contract with nonlawyer consultants, the jury had a reasonable basis to find the existence of a contract between the parties. But the jury’s verdict could be interpreted as rejecting plaintiff’s interpretation of the parties’ contract and there was documentary evidence to support the damages award.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Child Pornography
Motion to Suppress; Sentencing Enhancement
Defendant, convicted of child pornography offenses, appealed the denial of his suppression motion, the application of a sentencing enhancement, and the grouping of his counts at sentencing. The district court initially denied defendant’s suppression motion as moot, as the government had not collected any information from the phones it had seized from him during two prior arrests. When the government accessed the phones and filed a superseding indictment, the district court denied defendant’s renewed suppression motion, filed on the day of trial, as untimely and without good cause.
Where defendant could have filed his renewed motion upon the government’s filing of its superseding indictment, the district court correctly denied the motion as untimely since defendant failed to show good cause for the delay or to support suppressing the evidence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute
Sentencing Enhancement; Possession of Dangerous Firearm
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction for drug offenses, challenging the imposition of a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous firearm.
Where the record showed that defendant participated as a “runner” in two trafficking conspiracies, all runners in one of the conspiracies carried weapons, and investigators found a handgun in defendant’s girlfriend’s bedroom, there was sufficient evidence to connect the firearm to defendant’s crimes.
Judgment is affirmed.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Reasonableness of Sentence; Below-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for his conviction for drug and firearms offenses, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence, the court ruled that defendant’s sentence was presumptively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3336 U.S. v. Robinson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Sentencing Enhancement; Predicate Controlled Substance Offense
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that he had a predicate controlled substance offense that supported a sentencing enhancement.
Where circuit precedent had already ruled that defendant’s state law offense qualified as a predicate controlled substance offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1287 U.S. v. Evans, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Firearm Offense
Procedural Challenge; Calculation of Base Offense Level
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction to a firearms offense. Defendant argued that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level because his prior carjacking conviction was not a “crime of violence” as it did not involve the use or threat of force.
Where defendant’s prior conviction for carjacking by intimidation would have required proof that the victim could reasonably infer a threat of harm, it qualified as a crime of violence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Firearm Offense
Sentencing Calculation; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearms offense. Defendant challenged the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range and the reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the errors alleged by defendant and properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, the court found defendant’s sentence reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Homicide
Motion to Suppress Custodial Statements; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction for voluntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence. Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress his custodial statements, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the reasonableness of his aggregate 300-month sentence.
Where there was a substantial break between interrogations that cured the lack of Miranda warnings during the brief initial questioning and where defendant signed a Miranda waiver form, the district court properly admitted defendant’s statements, which supported defendant’s conviction in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, and there was no indication that the district court relied upon an improper factor when sentencing defendant.
Kelly, J., dissenting: “Elstad requires “a careful and thorough administration of Miranda warnings” to cure “the condition that rendered [a prior] unwarned statement inadmissible.” 470 U.S. at 310–11 (emphasis added). Agent Roberts’ verbal recitation of the Miranda warnings fell short of this requirement—he undisputedly omitted the critical right to remain silent.”
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1647 U.S. v. Rooney, Erickson, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Motion to Vacate Sentence
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Prejudice
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. At sentencing, the government sought a sentencing enhancement that would subject defendant to a minimum of 20 years in prison and 10 years of supervised release. In support of his motion, defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the use of a prior drug conviction to support the sentencing enhancement. The district court ruled that defendant was not prejudiced because it would have imposed the same prison sentence without the enhancement.
Where the district court overlooked the effect of the sentencing enhancement on defendant’s term of supervised release, the court remanded for further consideration of his §2255 motion.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
21-2363 Morales v. U.S., per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Arrest Warrant
Defendant appealed his conviction for drug offenses, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a search incident to arrest. Although an arrest warrant was issued for defendant, the court clerk requested the warrant’s return after defendant pled guilty and had his remaining charges dismissed. However, the warrant remained on the sheriff’s department’s computer system, where it was executed by a sheriff’s deputy several months later.
Where the sheriff’s department did not have widespread errors in the handling of recalled arrest warrants, the sheriff’s deputy was entitled to rely on the warrant in good faith and thus evidence seized during a search incident to arrest was admissible.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1408 U.S. v. Zahn, Wollman, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Plea Agreement; Government’s Breach
Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant argued that her appeal waiver in the plea agreement was invalid because the government breached the agreement. Defendant further argued that the district court committed procedural error in determining her Guidelines range and denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
Where the government never stipulated in the plea agreement that an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment should apply, there was no violation of the agreement for the government’s objection to defendant’s request for a downward adjustment. Thus, defendant’s appeal was barred by her appeal waiver.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1186 U.S. v. Tuttle, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Right to Speedy Trial; Motion to Dismiss
Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of drugs with intent to distribute and the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Due to the erroneous removal of defendant’s arrest warrant from the National Crime Information Center, defendant was not arrested and arraigned until nearly two years after the initial issuance of the warrant.
Where the delay in arraigning defendant was not excessive and was only caused in part by the government’s negligence rather than intentional delays, defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly denied where he could not demonstrate prejudice caused by the delay.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2201 U.S. v. Cooley, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Receipt of Child Pornography
Reduction of Offense Level; Breach of Plea Agreement
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for receipt of child pornography. In the plea agreement, the government stipulated to a two-level reduction of the offense level because defendant did not intend to distribute the materials. On appeal, defendant argued that the government violated the agreement by arguing at sentencing that he had distributed the materials.
Where the district court did not consider distribution or intended distribution in fashioning defendant’s sentence, there was no plain error from the government’s arguments at sentencing referring to evidence of distribution software on defendant’s computer.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1696 U.S. v. Wells, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Above-Maximum Sentence; Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment of sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court’s aggregate sentence went above the statutory maximum, the court adjusted the prison term and new term of supervised release but otherwise found the overall duration of the sentence reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3636 U.S. v. Drumgold, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Special Conditions; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the district court’s sentence imposed following the revocation of defendant’s supervised release. Defendant challenged a special condition imposed as part of his new sentence, which required defendant to spend 120 days in an residential reentry center, and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court considered defendant’s characteristics and need to provide a stable environment upon his reentry, there was no error in imposing an RRC stay as a special condition despite defendant’s previous flight from another RRC, and his overall sentence was supported by his history of recidivism and drug use.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Within-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed for her guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute, challenging the substantive reasonableness of her within-Guidelines sentence. Defendant argued that the guidelines for drug offenses did not rely upon empirical data but were unnecessarily punitive for being weight-driven.
Where the district court granted defendant safety valve relief, there was no abuse of discretion in declining to further reduce defendant’s sentence based on her policy arguments.
Judgment is affirmed.
Employer-Employee
Age Discrimination
Iowa Civil Rights Act; Certification of a Question of Law
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendants, her former employer, and sought to certify a question of law to the Iowa Supreme Court. Plaintiff worked for defendant as a certified nursing assistant. She agreed to discontinue providing services to one of defendant’s residents through a private arrangement due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, when plaintiff was observed with the resident outside working hours, defendants reported her to the state and suspended her. Although the state verbally informed defendants that plaintiff had been cleared of wrongdoing, defendants did not reinstate plaintiff, who ultimately resigned at age 59.
Where there was no direct evidence of age discrimination, plaintiff’s claims failed under the burden-shifting framework where she could not prove that defendants’ failure to reinstate her was motivated by her age as defendants continued to hire workers as old or older than plaintiff during her suspension.
Judgment is affirmed.
Disability Discrimination
Failure to Accommodate; Iowa Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendant, his former employer, on his disability discrimination claim. Beginning in 2016, plaintiff began taking FMLA leave for anxiety and depression. In 2019, plaintiff’s supervisor issued a written warning to plaintiff for excessive “unplanned and unexcused absences,” although defendant encouraged plaintiff to request FMLA leave if needed. However, plaintiff had a verbal confrontation with his supervisor during which plaintiff admittedly threatened his supervisor, which culminated in his termination. Plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him. The district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Where the record demonstrated that plaintiff never requested an accommodation, his failure to accommodate claim failed as a matter of law, and defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis to terminate plaintiff after he threatened his supervisor during a verbal altercation, which culminated a history of poor work performance.
Judgment is affirmed.
Vote on Collective Bargaining Agreement
Union’s Withholding of Material Information; Prejudice
Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in his lawsuit to challenge the approval of a CBA. Defendant union’s members approved a new CBA by a 119-vote margin. The new CBA eliminated a rule allowing employees with at least 30 years of service to retire with benefits and switched from a fixed-payment to variable-annuity model to preserve the employers’ defined-benefit pension plans. Plaintiff alleged that the information supplied by defendant lacked material information.
Where the record demonstrated that only nine union members affirmed that the omitted material information would have altered their vote, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit due to a lack of prejudice.
Judgment is affirmed.
Negligence
Wrongful Death
Premises Liability; Choice of Law
Decedent, a six-year-old boy, touched an exposed live electrical wire at defendants’ restaurant in Amman, Jordan, and was killed. His parents sued, asserting wrongful death claims. The district court found a conflict of law between Jordanian and Missouri law regarding apparent authority or strict products liability could serve as grounds for tort liability. The district court determined that Jordan had the most significant relationship to the case and dismissed plaintiff’s apparent authority and strict products liability claims as unrecognized by Jordanian law.
Where the court found no error in the district court’s choice-of-law analysis, it affirmed the partial dismissal of plaintiffs’ action.
Judgment is affirmed.
Torts
Civil RICO Action
Adverse Grant of Summary Judgment; Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on her complaint.
Where plaintiff failed to plead a plausible civil RICO action and where her other claims were without merit, the district court correctly dismissed the action on summary judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
