Minnesota Lawyer
Administrative
Disability Benefits
Residual Functional Capacity; Due Process
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order affirming the denial of her application for SSDI and SSI.
Where the ALJ had discretion to reject plaintiff’s subjective complaints and there was substantial credible evidence to support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination, there was no error in denying plaintiff’s application as plaintiff was advised of her right to seek representation.
Judgment is affirmed.
Federal Tax
Property Lien; Enforcement
Defendants appealed the district court’s enforcement of a federal tax lien against their real property.
Where applicable state law followed the rule of separate property rights of spouses rather than the doctrine of community property, the government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its enforcement action.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
§1983
Adverse Summary Judgment; Denial of Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment dismissal of his §1983 action.
Where the district court exercised its discretion to rule on the summary judgment without first referring it to a magistrate judge and to deny plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, the court affirmed the judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
§1983
False Arrest; Omission of Information from Affidavit
Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment dismissal of his §1983 lawsuit alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff represented a criminal defendant facing drug charges. Plaintiff was subsequently charged with conspiracy to murder the confidential informant in his client’s case. Several months later, plaintiff’s charges were dismissed after the prosecutor learned that the individual who alleged the murder conspiracy had previously made false murder-for-hire allegations.
Where the affidavit of probable cause would have still supported plaintiff’s arrest even if it contained information that plaintiff alleged was recklessly omitted, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1860 Howe v. Gilpin, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
§1983
Prison Inmate; Qualified Immunity
Defendants appealed a portion of the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff, a prison inmate, was investigated for sexually assaulting his cellmate. Before his disciplinary hearing, one member of the adjustment board sent an email stating that plaintiff was guilty. After he was found guilty, plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation where he filed multiple grievances and was also cited for two conduct violations. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied due process in his disciplinary hearing and retaliated against for filing grievances while in administrative segregation. The district court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion, finding that they had allegedly violated plaintiff’s clearly established due process rights and finding a genuine issue of material fact in his retaliation claims.
Where plaintiff was given adequate notice of the disciplinary infraction that would lead to his administrative segregation and opportunity to prepare a defense, he was afforded the due process required by law, and there was sufficient evidence to issue the conduct violations while plaintiff was in administrative segregation.
Judgment is reversed.
Prison Inmate
Eighth Amendment; Deliberate Indifference
Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in his Eighth Amendment action.
Where plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical need, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants.
Judgment is affirmed.
School Desegregation Agreement
Improper Diversion of Funding; Requirement to Conduct Desegregation Measures
Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s judgment dismissing their complaint, while the state cross-appealed. The parties had a school desegregation agreement under which defendants agreed to implement certain measures funded by state aid and a special sales tax. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the state had improperly diverted $86 million in funding from the school district to a group of charter schools. The district court granted judgment for the state. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the school district should receive the sales tax revenue, while the state contended that the parties’ settlement agreement had no desegregation spending condition.
Where special sales tax revenue had to be shared with charter schools by state law, the district court correctly granted judgment when the state sent some of the revenues to the charter schools; however, there was no support in the parties’ settlement agreement that would require the charter schools to spend the money on desegregation measures, especially where the schools were not party to the settlement.
Judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Contracts
Distributorship Agreement
Franchise Fee; Sale of Replacement Parts for Repair
Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff became a distributor and servicer of institutional boiler systems manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff’s principals later signed a sales representative agreement that did not include plaintiff as a party. The parties’ relationship later soured, and defendant terminated the distributorship. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the Minnesota Franchise Act precluded termination without good cause. The district court dismissed the case.
Where the sale of replacement parts for repairs of products sold by a distributor did not constitute a “franchise fee” when the manufacturer charged the price it paid to a third-party vendor, the parties’ distributor agreement did not constitute a franchise within the meaning of the MFA, and the parties did not have an oral implied-in-fact contract that defendant breached by terminating the distributorship without cause.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Conspiracy to Distribute
Mandatory Life Sentence; First Step Act Reduction
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. After being convicted for various drug crimes, defendant received a mandatory life sentence based on his prior felony drug convictions. Although Congress eliminated mandatory life sentences for defendant’s offense, it did not make sentence reductions retroactively available. The district court accordingly denied defendant’s motion for compassionate release, ruling that a non-retroactive change in sentencing law could not support a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction.
Where the Sentencing Commission’s proposed amendment to the sentencing guidelines clearly indicated that nonretroactive changes in sentence law could not establish eligibility for a §3582(c)(1)(A) sentencing reduction but could be considered by a district court when deciding whether to grant compassionate release, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2399 U.S. v. Rodriguez-Mendez, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska.
Conspiracy to Distribute
Within-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Defendant argued that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to various mitigating factors.
Where the district court expressly considered defendant’s mitigating factors but weighed them against the seriousness of defendant’s drug offense, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1609 U.S. v. Ashby, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
First Step Act Reduction; Abuse of Discretion
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and related firearms offenses. Defendant had moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The district court concluded that defendant was eligible and reduced his sentence. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court should have reduced his sentence even further, contending that it misstated the level of his leadership enhancement in his underlying conviction.
Where the district court recounted numerous factors that supported defendant’s co-conspirator receiving a lower sentence than defendant, there was no abuse of discretion in declining to reduce defendant’s sentence even further.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1495 U.S. v. White, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Distribution of Methamphetamine
Withdrawal of Guilty Plea; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for distributing a mixture containing methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant also alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Where defendant’s guilty plea was based on the total amount of drugs involved in his conspiracy, a discrepancy regarding the quantity of drugs found in a single incident did not affect the reliability of defendant’s plea to the entire conspiracy. The district court did not abuse its discretion in giving weight to one of the sentencing factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
Drug Offense
Upward Variance; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the judgment of the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court thoroughly considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3622 U.S. v. Tran, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Calculation of Base Level; Prior Controlled Substance Offense
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level by treating his 2018 Iowa conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver as a “controlled substance offense” and applying a firearm sentencing enhancement.
Where defendant’s prior conviction constituted a controlled substance offense under Iowa state law, and where defendant was committing a felony offense under applicable state law at the time of his firearm offense, the district court correctly calculated defendant’s base offense level and applied a sentencing enhancement.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1401 U.S. v. Wright, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Downward Variance; Procedural Unreasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, entered on the eve of trial. Defendant argued for a downward sentencing variance, arguing that his behavior arose solely from a desire to defend his cousin from harm. The district court rejected the government’s assertion that defendant’s late guilty plea and offering of mitigation arguments did not preclude an acceptance of responsibility adjustment. However, the district court varied upward from the Guidelines range based on the seriousness of defendant’s offense and his criminal history. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court granted the government’s motion to vary upward based on its argument that defendant’s mitigation claim demonstrated lack of remorse.
Where the district court granted the upward variance for reasons other than those advanced by the government – namely, the seriousness of defendant’s conduct, his criminal history, and personal characteristics – the district court did not improperly conflate mitigation with justification.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1653 U.S. v. Cannon, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Judgment of Acquittal; Calculation of Guidelines Range
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, contending that there was insufficient evidence of constructive possession, and calculating his Guidelines range.
Where defendant was the sole occupant of the vehicle where the firearm was found, officers witnessed him leaning toward the firearm, and defendant’s DNA was found on the firearm, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and his prior Missouri drug offense qualified as a prior controlled substance offense.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-2625 U.S. v. Swopes, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Inmate Trust Account
Application of Funds to Restitution; Stimulus Payments
Defendant appealed the district court’s order granting the government’s motion to apply funds from defendant’s inmate trust account to his restitution obligation.
Where the district court properly considered evidence that defendant had received stimulus payments, there was no error in granting the government’s motion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Interstate Travel for Illicit Sexual Conduct
Expert Testimony; Behavior of Child Sex Abuse Victims
Defendant appealed his conviction for interstate travel with intent of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in allowing an expert witness to testify about the typical behaviors of child sex abuse victims.
Where the expert only testified about the behavior of child sex abuse victims in general and did not opine on the truthfulness of the victim in the case, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert’s testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1584 U.S. v. West, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Prohibited Person in Possession of Firearm
Motion to Exclude Evidence of Flight; Calculation of Base Level
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the denial of his suppression motion and his motion to exclude flight evidence. Defendant further challenged the admission of various inculpatory statements he had made and the district court’s calculation of his base offense level.
Where defendant was not intimidated, coerced, or deceived by investigators, his physical ailments and intoxication did not render his Miranda waiver involuntary, and the evidence of his flight from police provided relevant evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Defendant’s prior conspiracy conviction also qualified as a controlled substance offense for purposes of calculating his base offense level.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1841 U.S. v. Medearis, Kobes, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Constitutionality of Vehicle Search
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of drugs found in his vehicle during a traffic stop. On appeal, defendant argued that police improperly delayed the traffic stop to conduct a canine search. Defendant further argued that the canine’s alert did not provide officers with probable cause to search.
Where police had reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved with drug activity based on prior investigations that connected defendant to drug sales, the canine search was part of the officers’ mission in stopping defendant after he also committed a traffic violation, and the canine had a training record indicating his ability to make positive identifications.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1787 U.S. v. Rederick, Benton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Rioting
Admission of Surveillance Footage; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for rioting and aiding and abetting arson, stemming from his participation in civil unrest. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms for his convictions, followed by supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the admission of surveillance video and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court found that the surveillance footage was probative because it provided a depiction of part of defendant’s conduct on the night of the arson and was relevant to prove whether he engaged in riotous behavior, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the video, and the district court adequately explained why it rejected some of the mitigation evidence presented by defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
Violation of Supervised Release
Above-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the above-Guidelines sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court considered the seriousness of defendant’s original criminal offense, his history of violations of supervisory condition, the risk he posed to the public, and his need for substance abuse and sex offender treatment, it did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence above the advisory Guidelines range.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Asylum
Withholding of Removal; Waiver of Issues
Petitioner sought review of the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Where petitioner failed to meaningfully challenge the BIA’s reasons for denying her asylum application, she effectively waived review of the decision. The BIA correctly denied the application where petitioner failed to establish her membership in a cognizable social or political group.
Petition is denied.
