Minnesota Lawyer
Administrative Law
Pro Se Action
Removal; Dismissal
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his removed pro se action against defendants.
Where there was no basis in the record to support reversal of the dismissal of plaintiff’s case, the court denied plaintiff’s request to enjoin operation of 38 C.F.R. §17.107.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
§1983
Wrongful Death; Biased Police Investigation
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint against Park Christian School and its administrators and the state of Minnesota and Minnesota State Police. Plaintiff’s children were players for the Park Christian basketball team driving to a tournament with other vehicles driven by the team’s coaches. During the trip, the head coach allegedly cut off a semi-truck, which encroached on plaintiffs’ sons’ vehicle, causing them to swerve into the median and suffer fatal injuries in the crash. Plaintiffs alleged that Park Christian officials had personal connections with the state police sergeant who investigated the crash and that the sergeant falsified the investigation. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ §1983 complaint, finding that collateral estoppel barred their claims and that the state defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
Where plaintiffs had already brought their allegations in a state court wrongful death lawsuit, the district court correctly concluded that their present civil rights claims arising from the same underlying incident was barred by collateral estoppel.
Judgment is affirmed.
Due Process
Failure to State Claim
Where a group of homeowners challenged the dismissal of their due process claims against a county for letting their neighborhood be built over a mine, the complaint failed to state a claim, so the dismissal is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Compassionate Release
Denial of Sentence Reduction; Consideration of Statutory Sentencing Factors
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for compassionate release.
Where the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors along with defendant’s individual circumstances and health conditions, there was no abuse of discretion in denying a sentence reduction.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Commit Economic Espionage
Departing Foreign National; Warrantless Search and Seizure
Defendant appealed his conditional guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to commit economic espionage. Defendant, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and a long-time resident of the U.S., was subjected to a warrantless search and forensic search of his electronic devices as he was departing the U.S. from Chicago O’Hare International Airport for Shanghai, China.
Where law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was engaged in economic espionage from his former U.S.-based employer for a Chinese company, officers could rely on the border exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement even though defendant was leaving rather than entering the U.S.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Admission of Prior Conviction; Calculation of Drug Quantity
Defendant appealed his jury conviction for conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the jury should not have been told about his prior drug conviction and that the district court erred in its calculation of the quantity of methamphetamine defendant distributed.
Where prior drug convictions could be relevant to show knowledge and intent, there was no error in admitting defendant’s past conviction, and the district court correctly calculated the relevant drug quantity.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Motion to Suppress; Lawfulness of Detention/Search
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Police observed defendant leaving a hotel room they had just secured a search warrant for in connection with a drug investigation. When defendant returned to the hotel, the officers detained him after he refused to comply with instructions. The officers conducted a search of defendant’s person that uncovered methamphetamine. The district court denied defendant’s suppression motion, ruling that police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant and probable cause to arrest when he attempted to flee.
Where officers observed defendant leaving a hotel room suspected of containing drugs, they had reasonable suspicion to believe defendant was connected to drug trafficking, and could detain him at gunpoint where the officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant might be armed, and his apparent attempt to flee gave probable cause for arrest.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Plea Agreement; Appeal Waiver
Defendant appealed the within-Guidelines sentence imposed pursuant to his plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where any challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence fell within the scope of the appeal waiver, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Jurisdiction on Native American Reservations; Warrantless Search of Vehicle
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute a substance containing methamphetamine, possession of a firearm as a felon, and obstruction of justice. On appeal, defendant challenged numerous district court decisions, including those relating to his motion to dismiss his indictment on jurisdictional grounds and to suppress evidence found during a vehicle search.
Where federal laws of general jurisdiction applied on Native American reservations and to crimes committed by Native Americans upon other Native Americans, the district court correctly denied defendant’s motions to dismiss his indictment, and evidence seized from a vehicle search was properly admitted where defendant was validly stopped for a traffic offense and the arresting officer obtained probable cause for the search after smelling the odor of marijuana.
Judgment is affirmed.
Felon in Possession of Ammunition
Revocation of Suspended State Sentence; Special Condition of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant had a suspended state sentence that was revoked, with the state court resentencing defendant to 480 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced defendant to a within-Guidelines sentence, part of which would run consecutive to his state sentence. The district court also imposed a requirement for defendant to undergo substance abuse treatment as a special condition of his federal sentence.
Where the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of discretion in requiring part of defendant’s federal sentence to run consecutive to his state sentence, nor in imposing a substance abuse treatment requirement given defendant’s prior drug-related convictions.
Judgment is affirmed.
Firearms Offense
Motion to Suppress Evidence/Statements; Failure to Give Miranda Warnings
Defendant appealed her conditional guilty plea conviction to firearms offenses, challenging the denial of her motion to suppress evidence and incriminating statements. Defendant argued that suppression was warranted due to the officers’ failure to provide Miranda warnings.
Where the record demonstrated that officers terminated questioning and defendant voluntarily re-initiated the conversation by asking to speak with one of the deputies and offering the location of her firearm, no Miranda warnings were necessary.
Judgment is affirmed.
Firearms Offense
Sentencing Enhancements; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearms offense, challenging the imposition of sentencing enhancements and arguing that the district court imposed a substantive unreasonable sentence.
Where the record supported finding that defendant possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense and that law enforcement officers were acting within their lawful duty, there was sufficient evidence to support imposition of the sentencing enhancement and the district court’s sentence was substantively reasonable after it properly considered the statutory sentencing factors.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession of a Firearm by Felon
Increased Guidelines Range; Prior Crime of Violence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. The district court calculated defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and sentenced him at the top of the range. However, the district court calculated the range after finding that defendant had two prior convictions for controlled substance offenses or crimes of violence. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in determining that his prior Missouri conviction for exhibiting a lethal weapon qualified as a crime of violence.
Where the force requirement for a crime of violence only applied to offenses that could be committed recklessly, the district court properly found defendant’s Missouri conviction to be a crime of violence since the offense had a “knowingly” mens rea.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Plea Agreement; Ambiguity of Plea Terms
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss defendant’s firearms charge and recommend a 90-month sentence. However, the agreement was silent as to whether defendant’s sentence would run concurrent with or consecutive to defendant’s existing state sentence. After the district court imposed a consecutive sentence, defendant appealed to challenge the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court found that rehabilitation had failed to prevent defendant’s continued criminal conduct, there was no abuse of discretion in considering prior sentencing leniency afforded to defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Consideration of Sentencing Factors
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Where the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Within-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the within-Guidelines sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release for admitted marijuana use, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where a within-Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable, there was no error in the district court considering the reasoning for defendant’s original sentence or in weighing defendant’s violations more heavily than any injuries or hardships he experienced.
Judgment is affirmed.
Robbery
Identity; Sufficiency of Evidence
Where a defendant challenged his convictions for robbing two banks, the evidence was sufficient to identify the defendant as the robber and to show that the two branch banks had FDIC status, and the judgment is affirmed because the verdict was not the product of jury coercion where the district court instructed the jury to continue deliberating once a jury poll showed their initial verdict lacked unanimity.
Judgment is affirmed.
Search Warrant
Good Faith Exception; Photo Identification
Where a defendant challenged his conviction for possessing firearms and ammunition as an armed career criminal, the court did not need to decide whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause because the district court properly found that the Leon good faith exception applied, and even if a photo lineup was impermissibly suggestive, the identification was still sufficiently reliable to be admissible, and the judgment is affirmed over the defendant’s remaining objections to an eyewitness identification.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Appeal Waiver
Where defendant brought an appeal after pleading guilty to a drug offense, the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable, and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Sentencing
Enhancement
Where a defendant challenged his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement for possessing the weapon with another felony offense.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Enhancement
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to a drug offense, the district court did not err in imposing a two-level enhancement for possession of dangerous weapons in connection with a drug offense since it was not clearly improbable that the weapons were connected to the drug dealing, and the court also did not err in denying safety valve release.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Prior Convictions; Crimes of Violence
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after convictions for being a felon in possession of ammunition, the district court did not err in determining that his two prior convictions for aggravated assault under Iowa law and his prior Iowa conviction for aggravated domestic assault qualified as convictions for crimes of violence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Revocation
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after the revocation of supervised release, the upward variance was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court provided sufficient justification for its decision to impose the variance.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Safety Valve
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty in a drug case, arguing that the statutory minimum didn’t apply under the safety valve law, the judgment is affirmed because the court made it clear that it would have imposed the same sentence anyway.
Judgment is affirmed.
SSI
Denial of Application; Residual Functional Capacity
Plaintiff appealed the judgment of the district court that affirmed the denial of her SSI application. The district court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination.
Where the ALJ was not required to identify specific jobs in determining that plaintiff possessed an RFC and there was no evidence of bias by the ALJ or district court, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s SSI application.
Judgment is affirmed.
Supervised Release
Home Confinement
Where a defendant challenged the revocation of supervised release, the district court did not err in finding that the defendant violated the home confinement condition of release by leaving his home five times without contacting his probation officer, so the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Supervised Release
Revocation; Additional Prison Time
Where a defendant challenged the additional prison time imposed after the revocation of his supervised release, the defendant’s arguments were foreclosed by precedent.
Judgment is affirmed.
Traffic Stop
Reasonable Suspicion; Surveillance
Where a defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress in a traffic stop case, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was unlawfully operating a vehicle with a dealer license plate, and the violation gave reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop based on knowledge and observations unrelated to the surveillance conducted on the defendant’s movement and actions.
Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Removal Proceedings
Asylum; Convention Against Torture
Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner entered the U.S. after allegedly receiving multiple threats after he reported to law enforcement that he and other bus passengers were victims of a robbery and identified one of the robbers as a member of a gang. The IJ rejected petitioner’s assertion that he was persecuted for “anti-gang” opinion and membership in the group of cooperating law enforcement witnesses, finding that the proposed group was not cognizable and that petitioner had failed to show a connection between his persecution and alleged political opinion.
Where petitioner failed to present any evidence that Guatemalan society recognized cooperating law enforcement witnesses as a distinct social group, his asylum claim failed as a matter of law.
Petition is denied.
Removal Proceedings
Asylum; Withholding of Removal
Petitioners sought review of the BIA’s decision issuing a final order of removal. Petitioners challenged the BIA’s determination that they failed to meet their burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioners had sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that their husband/father had an affair with the wife of a gang leader and was killed for it. Petitioners further alleged that they were threatened to leave Honduras immediately and that the gang leader subsequently shot at one of the petitioners.
Where petitioners’ fear was based on a personal dispute with the gang leader that lacked any nexus with a protected social group, the BIA correctly determined that petitioners were not entitled to withholding of removal.
Petition is denied.
