Minnesota Lawyer
Administrative Law
SSI
Severity of Mental Impairments; Residual Functional Capacity
Plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for supplemental security income.
Where the statement from plaintiff’s neurologist did not assess her functional limitations, the ALJ did not err in rejecting the statement to find plaintiff’s mental impairments non-severe since the statement did not qualify as a medical opinion, and there was sufficient evidence to support the RFC determination, including objective medical evidence, consultant opinions, and plaintiff’s own testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Practice
Diversity Jurisdiction
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Where two of decedent’s adult children brought a pro se diversity action against the decedent’s second wife in a dispute arising from her alleged use of her power as attorney-in-fact to close two certificates of deposit and keep funds intended for the children, the decedent’s third son was not a required party in the action, so the district court did not plainly err in deciding that it had diversity jurisdiction without sua sponte considering the applicable law, and the court properly found that the claims were claims that belonged to decedent for actions taken before his death and to his estate for actions taken after his death, so the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation and civil theft.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
§1983
Failure to Attend Deposition; Dismissal as Sanction
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of his §1983 action, pursuant to Rule 37(d).
Where plaintiff failed to attend a deposition for which he had notice of and did not update his address to receive notice of the rescheduled deposition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction for plaintiff’s willful failure to comply with court orders.
Judgment is affirmed.
Inmate Action
Penicillin Allergy; Deliberate Indifference
Where an inmate alleged that a physician’s assistant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by prescribing a penicillin-derived antibiotic despite his reported penicillin allergy, the district court properly found that the inmate did not establish that he had an objectively serious medical need, so the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Constitutional Law
Insulin Affordability Act
Takings Clause; Standing
Where a trade association representing insulin manufacturers challenged the dismissal of its action claiming that the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the state’s inverse condemnation procedure did not give the manufacturers an adequate remedy for the repetitive, alleged takings, so the district court erred in finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Second Amendment
Alien Firearm Possession; Sentencing
Where appellant, a Canadian citizen who was unlawfully present in the United States, challenged the constitutionality of a provision that prohibited him from possessing a firearm as an unlawful alien, unlawful aliens are not part of the people that the Second Amendment protects, and the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the sentencing record supported the court’s decision to depart upward based on the defendant’s Canadian criminal history, and the above-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1010 U.S. v. Sitladeen, Gruender, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Criminal Law
Bank Robbery
Brandishing a Firearm; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction for bank robbery and brandishing a firearm, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. At trial, defendant’s co-defendant testified that he drove defendant to a bank; when they arrived, defendant pulled out a firearm and told the co-defendant, “Don’t leave me.” Defendant returned to the car 90 seconds later with a bag full of money. Bank employees testified that the robber brandished a genuine-looking firearm, banging it on the counter as the employees collected money.
Where the co-defendant’s testimony was sufficient to support a robbery conviction and the bank employees’ testimony was sufficient to support a brandishing conviction, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1552 U.S. v. Sanders, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Bribery
Sentencing; Cross Reference
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a bribery case, the presentence investigation report found that the bribes were accepted for the purpose of facilitating a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, so the district court properly applied a cross-reference in determining the offense level.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2062 U.S. v. Koen, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Child Pornography
Admission of Evidence; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction for accessing and distributing child pornography. Defendant, a sex offender, was charged after police learned he had posted child pornography on the social media website Pinterest. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had accessed or distributed child pornography, claiming that the evidence did not prove that he owned the Pinterest profile. Defendant further contended that the district court erred in allowing the jury to hear details about his Pinterest profile, chat logs, and search history.
Where the government presented substantial evidence linking the Pinterest profile to an email owned by defendant, the jury was free to reject defendant’s alternative perpetrator theory, and evidence about the profile presented to the jury did not constitute improper propensity evidence but was relevant to show that defendant was interested in child pornography.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3786 U.S. v. Caruso, Stras, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Cross Examination
Prosecutor’s Statements
Where a defendant challenged his conviction in an attempted-enticement-of-a-minor case, the district court did not err in allowing the government to cross examine the defendant about a book he had read prior to testimony about how to conduct yourself during testimony, since the admission of the evidence was harmless, and the judgment is affirmed since even assuming a prosecutor’s statements about the defendant’s alleged theatrics were improper, there was no reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1558 U.S. v. Truax, Erickson, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Calculation of Base Offense Level; Prior Controlled Substance Offense
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the district court’s calculation of his base offense level, contending that a prior Iowa conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was not a predicate controlled substance offense because Iowa had since excluded hemp, making his prior conviction an overbroad offense.
Where the court had previously rejected defendant’s precise argument, circuit precedent foreclosed any relief to defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2479 U.S. v. Hoffman, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Motion to Dismiss; Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, which followed the district court’s denials of his motions to dismiss the indictment and for acquittal. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the allegations and evidence proving that he knew he was barred from possessing a firearm.
Where the indictment tracked the statutory language, the failure to specifically charge that defendant knew of his prohibited status was not fatal, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction by showing defendant had pled guilty to three felonies, including a prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Judgment is affirmed.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Within-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.
Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors, a within-Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3361 U.S. v. Shouse, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Sufficiency of Evidence of Violation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s finding of a Grade B violation and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the record supported finding that defendant committed a Grade B violation, the district court’s sentence was substantively reasonable as it was within the Guidelines range and the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3329 U.S. v. Webster, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court properly considered the relevant factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3650 U.S. v. Barney, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Tax Evasion
Admission of Expert Testimony; Denial of Acquittal/New Trial
Defendant appealed his conviction for failure to file tax returns and tax evasion. Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting an IRS special agent’s expert testimony. Defendant further challenged the denial of his motion for acquittal or a new trial, and the district court’s order ruling in the government’s favor on a Jencks Act issue.
Where the special agent’s testimony was not directed to defendant’s mens rea but generally described the modus operandi of those who engaged in tax evasion, there was no error in admitting the testimony, and there was no need under the Jencks Act for the government to disclose the special agent’s statements unrelated to his trial testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1299 U.S. v. Primm, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Employer-Employee
Equal Pay Act
Lack of Comparators; Legitimate Justification for Pay Disparity
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on her Equal Pay Act claim. Plaintiff received a base salary of $200,000 when defendant employed a male in an identically-titled position, who received a base salary of $275,000. During discovery, defendant justified the pay disparity by asserting that the male employee brought broad experience from another firm and noting that plaintiff also received overtime compensation and had a more generous incentive compensation plan.
Where plaintiff’s alleged comparators either were paid less than her or did not perform equal work, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint on summary judgment where defendant was able to cite legitimate, nondiscriminatory justifications for the disparity in base salary.
Judgment is affirmed.
Failure to Promote
Constructive Discharge; Age Discrimination
Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in plaintiff’s age discrimination and constructive discharge lawsuit. In 2017 and 2018, plaintiff, then 62, unsuccessfully applied for promotions that were given to younger candidates in their 30s who received better scores during the interview process. Over a year later, plaintiff retired. In granting defendant summary judgment, the district court ruled that plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s rationale for its promotion decision was pretext for age discrimination and failed to timely pursue his administrative remedies in his constructive discharge claim.
Where defendant’s policies expressly allowed hiring managers to base decisions solely on the interview process, defendant did not violate its policies by failing to consider other factors outside of the interview when deciding not to offer a promotion to plaintiff, and plaintiff’s claims failed where he could not demonstrate pretext or a pattern of age discrimination.
Judgment is affirmed.
ERISA
Disability Pension Benefits
Denial of Application; Conflict of Interest
Where appellant challenged the denial of his application for disability pension benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the district court granted summary judgment to the board of trustees, the appropriate standard of review is for an abuse of discretion, and the judgment is affirmed because even if a conflict of interest is assumed, it does not change the outcome, and the board’s interpretation of the plan as requiring the notice of award to be submitted within 180 days was reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Asylum
Jurisdiction; Nexus
Where a petitioner from Guatemala sought review of an order denying his request to terminate proceedings based on an allegedly defective notice to appear and affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, the challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings was foreclosed by precedent, and the denial of asylum was proper because substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the required nexus between any persecution and his race or membership in the proposed social group.
Petition denied.
Real Property
Mortgage
Foreclosure; Adverse Summary Judgment
Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff in its mortgage foreclosure action.
Where the record supported granting plaintiff summary judgment, the court affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Torts
Seizure of Canines
Court’s Jurisdiction; Dismissal as Sanction
Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their complaint arising from Jasper County’s seizure of their dogs.
Where the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and was not required to recuse itself, there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ lawsuit for their failure to comply with a court order when any lesser sanction would have meant further delay or prejudiced defendants’ ability to try their case.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3257 Woody v. Halferty, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Pre-trial Dismissal of Claims
Breach of Fiduciary Duties; Discovery/Fraudulent Concealment Rule
Plaintiff appealed the adverse judgment entered in his tort case against his son.
Where the discovery rule and doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not extend the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s claims and where a family relationship, without more, did not create a fiduciary relationship, the district court correctly entered judgment against plaintiff.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1335 Atkins v. Atkins, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
