8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: July 5, 2023

Civil Rights

§1983

Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment; Prosecution Under Solid Waste Ordinance

Plaintiff appealed the grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s §1983 claims. Defendant charged plaintiff with violating defendant’s solid waste ordinance after he used a portion of his property to store unlicensed vehicles, scrap metal, and other debris. Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail. However, plaintiff later obtained postconviction relief vacating his conviction and filed the present lawsuit. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to defendant, finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately plead that defendant had violated his rights.

Where plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that defendant had an official policy, practice, or custom of charging individuals who were not solid waste management companies under the solid waste ordinance, his §1983 claim failed due to the lack of any constitutional violation.

Judgment is affirmed.

Kiefer v. Isanti County, MN (MLW No. 80123/Case No. 22-1499 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J.

Inpatient Sex Offender Treatment

Assault by Roommate; Knowledge of Substantial Risk

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint against staff members of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, in which he claimed that staff members violated his civil rights by allowing his roommate to assault him.

Where plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that staff members had actual knowledge of a substantial risk to plaintiff, his claims failed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Lindsey v. Kneisel (MLW No. 80135/Case No. 23-1125 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Brasel, J.

Consumer Law

Financial Institution Liability

Failure to Detect Fraud; Conversion

Plaintiff’s estate appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment on its conversion claims. Plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly failing to detect that decedent’s stepson was stealing money from decedent’s accounts through the use of fraudulently endorsed checks. Plaintiff asserted conversion claims, arguing that defendant had aided and abetted the theft by failing to detect the fraud. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, ruling that plaintiff lacked standing with respect to decedent’s corporate accounts or the joint account held by decedent’s stepson and his mother, decedent’s wife. As for decedent’s joint account with his wife, the district court found no evidence that defendant had managed the account inconsistent with the terms of the account agreement and held that plaintiff had failed to timely report the fraud to defendant.

Where decedent’s corporate accounts were not controlled by defendant, plaintiff’s claims with respect to those accounts failed because no injury was traceable to defendant, and plaintiff lacked any interest in the joint account between decedent’s stepson and his mother, but the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant rather than dismissing the case for lack of standing.

Judgment is vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part.

Muff v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (MLW No. 80121/Case Ns. 22-2107 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Contracts

Unit Purchase Agreement

Breach; Duties of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s complaint alleging breach of contract and the duties of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff invented a prototype medical device and partnered with defendant to bring it to market. The parties agreed that defendant would gradually purchase plaintiff’s company as the device reached various development milestones. However, development ran into trouble and after a competitor’s product showed more promise, defendant shut down plaintiff’s company. Plaintiff filed suit, arguing that the parties’ UPA precluded defendant from shutting down the project like it did.

Where plaintiff presented no evidence that defendant treated similarly situated projects differently than it treated plaintiff’s project, he could not show that defendant acted inconsistently with the UPA’s requirements, and the unique challenges faced by plaintiff’s product supported defendant’s decision to shut down the project.

Judgment is affirmed.

Mortier v. LivaNova USA, Inc. (MLW No. 80125/Case No. 22-2125 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tostrud, J.

Criminal Law

Assault of a Federal Officer

Speedy Trial; Guilty Plea

Defendant appealed his guilty plea conviction for assaulting and resisting a federal officer, claiming that his right to a speedy trial was violated.

Where defendant pled guilty to the charge, he effectively waived any speedy trial claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Steele (MLW No. 81028/Case No. 22-2684 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Hovland, J.

Conspiracy to Distribute

Base Offense Level; Improper Attribution of Drugs

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant objected to his base offense level, arguing that the PSR improperly attributed drugs to him found in a package he had driven a friend to collect. Defendant also challenged the denial of his request for a downward variance.

Where the government presented evidence that defendant knew his friend was picking up drugs, the district court correctly calculated defendant’s base offense level and denied a minor role adjustment, and there was no abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s request for a downward variance where the district court thoroughly considered defendant’s personal history.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ohrtman (MLW No. 80138/Case No. 22-2036 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

Conspiracy to Distribute

Sentencing Enhancement; Directing the Use of Violence

While in prison for dealing drugs, defendant teamed up with Christopher Hicks to continue selling drugs. Defendant would arrange for shipments of drugs to Hicks, who would pay by delivering cash to defendant’s family, making a deposit into another inmate’s prison account, or wiring funds to a third party. The relationship soured when Hicks stopped paying for shipments and responding to defendant’s texts. To protect his family, defendant passed along Hicks’ information to their suppliers. Defendant eventually pled guilty to conspiracy to sell drugs when Hicks sold drugs to police informants. The district court imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement for “directing the use of violence.”

Where defendant decided to direct his suppliers to Hicks to protect defendant’s family members, knowing that the suppliers could and would use violence to exact retribution for non-payment, the district court properly found that defendant had directed the use of violence.

Smith, J., concurring: “I concur in the judgment of the court but on a different ground from that stated in its opinion. I would affirm the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement because Hicks ‘made a credible threat to use violence.'”

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Hernandez-Barajas (MLW No. 80120/Case No. 21-3763 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Stras, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J.

Conspiracy to Distribute

Sentence Reduction; Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute. Defendant acknowledged that the First Step Act was not retroactive but challenged the legal precedent holding that a non-retroactive change in the law could not contribute to a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons.

Although the First Step Act permitted district courts to consider intervening changes of law in deciding whether to reduce a sentence, this did not alter the law prohibiting the use of non-retroactive changes in law as a factor in deciding a motion for sentence reduction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. House (MLW No. 80130/Case No. 22-3129 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Harpool, J.

Distributing Drugs Resulting in Death

Sufficiency of Evidence; Use of Prior Bad Acts

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for distributing controlled substances resulting in death. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the district court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior drug arrests and convictions and using his conviction for drug possession to enhance his sentence. Defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutional because it punished him more harshly than a drug distributor.

Where the government presented sufficient evidence to find that defendant had given drugs to the victim or that the victim died from drugs he received from defendant, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant, and his sentence was constitutional where Congress could have rationally decided to punish street-level distributors who sell fatal drugs directly to individuals more harshly.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Cardwell (MLW No. 80124/Case No. 22-1561 – 21 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Ross, J.

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Consecutive Sentences;Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses. The district court imposed the Guidelines range sentence for defendant’s drug conviction and imposed an above-Guidelines sentence for the firearms conviction. The district court further ordered the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where defendant’s arguments on appeal merely reflected a disagreement over how the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Hernandez (MLW No. 80139/Case No. 22-2553 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Possession of Firearm by Felon

Downward Variance; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a downward variance from the Guidelines range. On appeal, defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and gave significant weight to various mitigating factors in deciding to vary downward, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Garcia (MLW No. 80132/Case No. 22-3400 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Possession of Firearm by Prohibited Person

Prior Controlled Substance Offense; Overbroad Statute of Conviction

Defendant appealed his sentence following his guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a prohibited person. The district court calculated defendant’s base offense level after finding that he had prior felony convictions for a crime of violence and a controlled substance offense. On appeal, defendant argued that his Iowa conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute did not qualify as a controlled substance offense because the Iowa statute was broader than the federal statute at the time of his state offense.

Where the court had previously found that the prior version of the Iowa statute qualified as a controlled substance offense, defendant’s arguments on appeal failed as a matter of law.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Johnson (MLW No. 80140/Case No. 22-2856 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Receipt of Child Pornography

Conditions of Supervised Release; Possessing Computers or Sexually Explicit Material

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to receipt of child pornography. Specifically, defendant challenged two special conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court – a prohibition on possession or use of a “computer” and a prohibition on possessing or viewing sexually explicit depictions. Defendant argued that the district court failed to make individualized findings.

Where the district court explained that offenders who initially search for adult pornography will eventually find their way back to collecting child pornography, it made a sufficiently individualized finding, but the district court used too broad a definition for “computers.”

Judgment is vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part.

U.S. v. Powell (MLW No. 80129/Case No. 22-2867 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J., and Jackson, J.

Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

Conditions of Supervised Release; Prohibition on Internet-Capable Device

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to sexual exploitation of a minor and sex trafficking of a minor. Defendant objected to the condition of his supervised release that barred him from possessing or using any electronic device with access to any “on-line computer service” without approval.

Where defendant’s offense involved the use of communication services to solicit the production of child pornography and to traffic minor victims, the restriction on defendant’s use of internet-capable devices was reasonable where defendant could seek approval to use such devices.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Gibson (MLW No. 80141/Case No. 22-2963 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Wimes, J.

Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

Consecutive Sentences; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the consecutive sentences imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Defendant argued that the district court gave weight to improper or irrelevant factors and committed a clear judgment error in weighing the sentencing factors.

Where the district court did not consider defendant’s quality of life in prison versus an early release as a factor during sentencing, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion where the district court expressly considered all relevant sentencing factors and mitigating evidence presented by defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Evan (MLW No. 80142/Case No. 22-3024 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Traynor, J.

Supervised Release

Denial of Motion to Withdraw Admissions;Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The district court imposed a sentence after varying upward from the Guidelines range, following the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his admissions to violating the conditions of his supervised release.

Where the district court expressly considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion to vary upward where the district court focused on defendant’s history of supervised release violations.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Left Hand (MLW No. 80134/Case No. 22-3633 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court considered all relevant statutory sentencing factors, its sentencing decision was substantively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Dudley (MLW No. 80136/Case No. 23-1492 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Pratt, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that defendant had not communicated with counsel before failing to appear for the initial revocation hearing. Defendant further argued that the district court failed to adequately explain its upward variance and erred in basing the length of the prison term on the length of the unserved portion of defendant’s revoked supervised release.

Where there was no evidence that the district court would have imposed a shorter sentence had it further explained its sentencing decision, there was no sentencing error where the district court merely made a passing observation that the sentence was equal to the unserved term of supervised release.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. McFarlin (MLW No. 80133/Case No. 22-3505 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Moody, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Defendant argued that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors.

Where the district court considered defendant’s mitigating factors and weighed them against the aggravating factors, there was no abuse of discretion in imposing a top-of-the-Guidelines sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Watson (MLW No. 80131/Case No. 22-3339 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tostrud, J.

Unlawful Possession of Ammunition as a Felon

Armed Career Criminal; Use of Weapon Resulting in Death

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful possession of ammunition as a felon. Defendant’s conviction stemmed from his shooting of a person with whom defendant had gotten into an argument. At sentencing, the district court concluded that defendant qualified as an armed career criminal and had used a firearm in a crime of violence. The district court subsequently granted the government’s motion for an upward departure based on the use of a weapon resulting in death and because defendant’s criminal history category understated his risk for recidivism.

Where defendant was not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether he had committed prior predicate offenses, there was no error in his armed career criminal designation, nor any abuse of sentencing discretion where the district court properly relied on the circumstances of his offense to support the upward departure.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ellison (MLW No. 80127/Case No. 22-2631 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Employer-Employee

Class Action

FLSA/AMWA; Award of Legal Fees

Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in their complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The district court originally awarded plaintiffs nominal fees due to their firm’s billing practices, but the court vacated due to the lack of a lodestar calculation. On remand, the district court calculated a lodestar but again only awarded nominal fees due to plaintiffs’ firm’s egregious and unprofessional conduct. The district court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental petition for their appellate legal fees, ruling that plaintiffs were not the prevailing party on appeal because there had been no definitive ruling.

Where the district court calculated the lodestar amount and provided ample justification for reducing the fee award based on plaintiffs’ counsel’s egregious conduct, the court found no abuse of discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

Vines v. Welspun Pipes Inc. (MLW No. 80122/Case No. 21-3537 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J.

Wage Dispute

Dismissal as Sanction; Litigation Misconduct

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their wage action against defendants as a sanction for their litigation conduct.

Where plaintiffs had repeatedly filed premature or meritless motions, placed ex parte phone calls to the district court regarding discovery disputes, made improper objections during depositions, and instructed one witness not to attend his deposition, the district court was justified in dismissing the case as a sanction for plaintiffs’ bad faith conduct.

Judgment is affirmed.

Bachman v. Bachman (MLW No. 80137/Case No. 22-1638 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Negligence

Premises Liability

Athletic Facilities; Federal Tort Claims Act

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint filed on behalf of his minor son. Plaintiff’s three-year-old son suffered severe head injuries when a soccer goal at Little Rock Air Force Base, where plaintiff was stationed and lived with his family, tipped over on top of him. Plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the Air Force negligently failed to secure the goal to the ground and to warn people of the potential danger. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, ruling that it could not be liable under the FTCA due to Arkansas’ recreational use statute that immunized landowners who allowed others to use their property for recreational purposes.

Where Arkansas’ soccer goal safety statute had no enforcement mechanism, it was not a “more specific” statute that took precedence over the recreational use statute, and plaintiff’s claims still failed because the recreational use statute also required proof of a landowner’s malice.

Judgment is affirmed.

Hutchinson v. U.S. (MLW No. 80126/Case No. 22-2126 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Stras, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Moody, J.