8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: July 19, 2023

Civil Rights

Excessive Force

Qualified Immunity; Loss of Immunity

Defendant appealed the partial denial of his motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s son, Jordan, was shot and killed by defendant, a police officer, who had responded to reports that Jordan was suicidal and attempting to acquire a gun. Jordan entered an enclosed porch with a knife, leading defendant and the officers to order him to drop the knife. Ignoring the officers’ orders, Jordan continued to walk toward defendant, who opened fire seven times in two seconds, three times while Jordan was standing and four while he was on the ground. The district court bifurcated defendant’s motion between the time Jordan was standing and lying on the ground. The district court concluded that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity while Jordan was standing but not after he fell to the ground and dropped the knife because defendant had sufficient time to adjust his aim downward and therefore could have reassessed the threat.

Where the video evidence showed that defendant only had about one second to reassess the threat posed by Jordan as he fired continuously, a jury could not have reasonably found that defendant had sufficient time to evaluate whether to continue firing and thus the continuous firing did not violate a clearly established constitutional right as Jordan had moments earlier posed a threat to defendant.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Ching v. City of Minneapolis (MLW No. 80195/Case No. 22-3157 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Schultz, J., and Menendez, J.

Failure to Investigate

Due Process/Equal Protection Violations; Standing

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s complaint alleging violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the federal and Missouri constitutions. Plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted by his daughter’s ex-boyfriend and his cousin. Plaintiff claimed that defendant refused to investigate the assault because his assailants were related to the county clerk of court. Plaintiff asserted that the lack of investigation meant he had little evidence to support his civil lawsuit against his assailants.

Where a crime victim could not have standing under federal law to sue a law enforcement official for failing to investigate the alleged crime, plaintiff lacked standing and the district court should have granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Pratt v. Helms (MLW No. 80184/Case No. 22-3002 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Bough, J.

Pretrial Detainee

Inadequate Medical Care; Deliberate Indifference

Plaintiff, the personal representative of the estate of Bilal Hill, appealed the grant of summary judgment for several defendants. Hill was a pretrial detainee who submitted numerous sick call requests, claiming that he was suffering from severe back, neck, and shoulder pain and had a growth in his neck. After a couple of months, Hill was transported to the emergency room as he had lost about 30 pounds during his detention; hospital staff diagnosed Hill with terminal cancer. The district court granted several defendants summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact that they were deliberately indifferent to Hill’s medical needs.

Where defendant correctional officers deferred to medical professionals regarding Hill’s medical care and there was no evidence they withheld material information from the medical professionals regarding Hill’s condition, plaintiff could not show that defendants exhibited a deliberate indifference to medical need.

Judgment is affirmed.

Smith v. Lisenbe (MLW No. 80183/Case No. 22-2644 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Bodenhausen, J.

Prison Inmate

Medical Negligence; Wrongful Death

Plaintiff, administratrix of her son’s estate, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the government. Plaintiff alleged that, beginning on July 31, 2017, the BOP failed to timely diagnose her son’s cancer and provide medical care, which led to his death. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court’s conclusion that she failed to allege any pre-July 31 conduct in her administrative claim and complaint.

Where the district court lacked jurisdiction over any claims accruing before July 31 because plaintiff did not raise those claims in her administrative complaint, it correctly determined that plaintiff could not prove causation.

Judgment is affirmed.

Adams v. U.S. (MLW No. 80181/Case No. 22-2247 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J.

Criminal Law

Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child

Defense Access to Victim Mental Health Records; PTSD Diagnosis

Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child. On an initial appeal, the court remanded for the district court to consider whether the refusal to permit defense counsel access to the victim’s mental health records was harmless since she testified at trial that she was diagnosed with PTSD following her alleged sexual assault. The district court concluded that the failure to grant access was harmless because the victim was only diagnosed with PTSD after defendant’s alleged assault and because the district court found her trial testimony truthful.

Where the prosecutor disregarded the district court’s order and introduced evidence about the victim’s pre- and post-assault mental health diagnoses, defendant should have been granted the opportunity to discover evidence related to the veracity of the victim’s testimony to potentially refute the victim’s implication that her PTSD was caused by the alleged sexual assault.

Shepherd, J., dissenting: “I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Arias’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were indeed violated. See id. at 801-02 (Colloton, J., dissenting); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 (1987) (plurality opinion) (stating that the Confrontation Clause is not “a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery” but instead “prevent[s] improper restrictions on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during cross-examination”). Because there was no Confrontation Clause violation, I would not reach the harmless-error analysis.”

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

U.S. v. Arias (MLW No. 80186/Case No. 21-1090 – 18 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Lange, J.

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Motion to Suppress Evidence; Search of Residences

Defendant appealed his conviction for drug and firearms offenses, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during searches of two residences. Defendant began renting a house on a month-to-month tenancy; when defendant’s landlord had his rental license revoked, defendant stored some of his personal items in the house’s garage. Learning of defendant’s lease, police obtained a search warrant when a trash pull uncovered clear bags containing methamphetamine residue. After leaving his leased residence, defendant moved in with his brother and updated his sex offender registration with that address. Defendant also spent time at another duplex, which police also searched after observing one of the duplex’s occupants engage in an apparent drug transaction. The district court denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence from the residences, finding that the search warrants were supported by probable cause.

Where police surveillance, including trash pulls finding evidence of drugs and observed drug transactions, provided probable cause that the residences were connected with drug trafficking, the district court correctly denied suppression of evidence found during searches of the residences.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Juneau (MLW No. 80193/Case No. 22-2780 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J.

Criminal Law

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Sentencing Enhancement; Possession of Firearm in Connection with Felony Offense

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant challenged the district court’s imposition of a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, arguing that the district court used the wrong standard to apply the enhancement.

Although the district court failed to apply the “facilitate” standard to determine if defendant possessed a firearm in connection with the felony drug possession offense, any error was harmless where the record contained facts indicating that defendant possessed the firearm to protect the drugs in his possession and to protect himself during his drug trafficking activities.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Phillips (MLW No. 80197/Case No. 22-2140 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Commitment; Mental Disorders

Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of the government’s petition for commitment. Defendant, who suffered from multiple mental disorders, including schizophrenia, served a sentence for a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to his release, the government moved to commit defendant to the custody of the Attorney General, arguing that defendant would pose a significant danger to the public if released.

Where the district court relied on defendant’s criminal history to conclude he would pose a danger to the public if released, there was no error in finding a causal nexus between defendant’s mental diseases and his dangerousness or concluding that no other suitable placement existed.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Becerra (MLW No. 80210/Case No. 22-2403 – 15 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Magnuson, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Motion to Suppress Evidence; Lack of Probable Cause

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition found in a pat-down search during a high-risk felony stop. Defendant argued that the officers turned the stop into an investigative detention or arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and that the search exceeded the bounds of the protective sweep doctrine.

Where officers were responding to reports of a discharged firearm, the police had reasonable concern for public safety and were justified in believing that defendant and his companions might have been responsible for the discharge and thus were armed, given the fact that they were one of the few groups of people in the area and matched the description of the perpetrators. Therefore, the use of force employed by the officers did not transform the stop into a detention or arrest.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Childers (MLW No. 80211/Case No. 22-2743 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J., and Magnuson, J.

Illegal Exportation of Firearm Parts

Search in Foreign County; Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. Defendant was indicted for illegal exportation of firearm parts to Mexico after Mexican authorities searched his vehicle and residence. Upon being arrested following his return to the U.S., defendant moved to suppress the evidence arguing that the Mexican police conducted warrantless searches and that his statements following his reentry to the U.S. were involuntary. Defendant also moved to dismiss his indictment, alleging violation of his due process rights by Mexican authorities. The district court denied defendant’s motions. Following his conviction, the district court imposed an upward variance. On appeal, defendant also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the conduct of the Mexican law enforcement authorities did not shock the conscience as there was no evidence that defendant was tortured and where U.S. law enforcement authorities did not substantially participate in the searches, the court could not apply the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained by Mexican authorities.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Pierson (MLW No. 80179/Case No. 22-1918 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J.

Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act

Constitutionality; Standard of Review

Plaintiffs, a group of sex offenders civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act. Plaintiffs asserted facial and as-applied challenges to the MCTA, alleging that defendants violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court initially granted judgment for plaintiffs, but on appeal the court vacated, ruling that the district court applied the wrong standards to plaintiffs’ facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims. The district court, agreeing with defendants that the “shocks the conscience” standard applied, granted judgment in their favor.

Where plaintiffs failed to raise an argument for applying the professional-judgment standard to their conditions-of-confinement and medical treatment claims, those claims were waived, and the district court properly applied the alternative standard to plaintiffs’ claims, which also failed due to their failure to identify injuries resulting from alleged deliberate indifference to their medical or mental health needs.

Judgment is affirmed.

Karsjens v. Harpstead (MLW No. 80189/Case No. 22-1459 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Frank, J., and Leung, J.

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Career Offender Designation; Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the district court’s application of a career offender enhancement and the reasonableness of his sentence. Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute near a protected location. Based on defendant’s 1998 convictions for possession and distribution of cocaine, the district court imposed a career offender designation and increased defendant’s total offense level by nine levels. On appeal, defendant argued that his 1998 convictions should be considered a single conviction because the earlier state conviction was relevant conduct for his federal conviction and was outside the lookback period.

Even if the district court erroneously calculated defendant’s offense level by imposing a career offender designation, any error was harmless where the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence, based on defendant’s criminal history, even if a lower Guidelines range applied.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Doolin (MLW No. 80180/Case No. 22-2148 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Motion to Suppress; Inventory Search

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine found in his vehicle during an inventory search. Defendant argued that the inventory search was a pretext for an investigatory search.

Where department policy required police to tow defendant’s vehicle following his arrest on an active warrant, the officers did not abuse their discretion in declining to use the exception to the towing policy to contact the vehicle’s owner to come retrieve the vehicle, and thus the inventory search was justified regardless of whether officers also had an investigatory motive.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Nielsen (MLW No. 80212/Case No. 22-2965 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Upward Variance; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute. The district court granted the government’s motion for a Guidelines range reduction based on defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities. However, the district court ultimately varied the Guidelines range upward, stating that the base offense level for fentanyl was too low, as it was a more dangerous drug than other controlled substances with higher Guidelines ranges, such as heroin or methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court impermissibly varied upward based on its policy disagreement with the Guidelines.

Where district courts were permitted to vary from the Guidelines based on its policy disagreements, there was no abuse of discretion in varying upward in defendant’s case where it tied that disagreement to the aggravating circumstances of defendant’s offense.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Cortez (MLW No. 80198/Case No. 22-3161 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Production of Child Pornography

Special Conditions of Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to production of child pornography. The district court imposed offense level enhancements because the materials depicted sexual activity with a minor. The district court imposed within-Guidelines aggregate term after ordering part of one of defendant’s sentence to run concurrent with the other sentence, followed by 25 years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant objected to one of the special conditions of his supervised release, arguing that the condition announced in open court conflicted with the written judgment, and challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the written judgment indicated a broader purpose for the challenged special condition, the written judgment had to give way to the more narrowly tailored oral judgment, but the court found defendant’s prison term substantively reasonable where the district court addressed all relevant statutory sentencing factors.

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

U.S. v. Brown (MLW No. 80191/Case No. 22-2320 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas.

Statutory Sodomy

Sufficiency of Evidence of Victim’s Age; Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petitioner appealed the magistrate judge’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. A Missouri state court jury convicted petitioner for first-degree statutory sodomy, which required the victim to be under 14 years old. Petitioner unsuccessfully filed a direct appeal challenging the sufficiency of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was less than 14 years old. The magistrate judge denied petitioner’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus, ruling that the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision was not objectively unreasonable.

Although no direct evidence of the victim’s age was presented during petitioner’s trial, the jury heard other evidence that would permit it to infer that the victim was under the age of 14 at the time of the offense, such that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Missouri Court of Appeals to reject petitioner’s appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment is affirmed.

Bookwalter v. Vandergriff (MLW No. 80196/Case No. 22-1722 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Arnold, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Mensah, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Grading of Offense

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release. The probation office petitioned for revocation of defendant’s supervised release based on defendant’s wife’s allegations that defendant had choked her during an argument. At an evidentiary hearing, defendant’s wife claimed that defendant did not attempt to choke her, although she conceded that she told law enforcement and defendant’s probation officer otherwise to obtain a protection order. However, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release and, based on the nature of his violation, imposed a bottom-of-the-Guidelines-range sentence. On appeal, defendant challenged the grading of his violation.

Where the district court found that photographic evidence showed injuries to defendant’s wife consistent with a choking force sufficient to restrict her breathing or circulation, the district court correctly graded defendant’s violation.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Lynch (MLW No. 80190/Case No. 22-2272 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, which imposed a term of incarceration with no supervised release to follow. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the district court sufficiently considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, defendant’s sentence was reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Todt (MLW No. 80185/Case No. 23-1443 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Schelp, J.

Immigration

Removal

Asylum; Convention Against Torture

Petitioner appealed the denial of her application for asylum and protection under the CAT and the BIA’s decision affirming the order of removal. Petitioner fled with her son from Guatemala after a group protesting the mayor of her town wrongfully accused petitioner of being involved in the killing of one of its members. Petitioner sought asylum and protection under the CAT, claiming persecution as a “witness to mob killings” and a person “believed to have participated in mob killings.” The IJ found petitioner’s application untimely and concluded that her proposed social groups were not cognizable.

Where petitioner failed to challenge the IJ’s determination that her proposed social groups were not cognizable for an application for asylum and protection under the CAT, the BIA was constrained to affirm the order of removal.

Petition is denied.

Castanion-Lopez v. Garland (MLW No. 80182/Case No. 22-2803 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Removal

Deferral; Reversal of IJ’s Decision

Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s order that affirmed the IJ’s decision to the extent that it ordered petitioner removed and reversed the decision granting deferral of removal. After petitioner received multiple convictions for shoplifting and attempted terroristic threats, DHS initiated removal proceedings due to his convictions involving two or more crimes of moral turpitude and aggravated felonies. Although the IJ found petitioner removable, it found that he had met his burden for deferral of removal to South Sudan. The BIA reversed, concluding that petitioner had not demonstrated a likelihood of torture if he were returned to South Sudan. Petitioner challenged the denial of deferral of removal and the designation of one of his shoplifting offenses as an aggravated felony.

Where petitioner’s state conviction encompassed a broader mens rea requirement than the general theft offense under federal law, the BIA erred in concluding that petitioner had committed an aggravated felony that made him removable.

Petition is granted.

Thok v. Garland (MLW No. 80192/Case No. 22-2508 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Removal

Failure to Appear; Motion to Reopen Proceedings

Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings after he failed to appear at the removal hearing. Petitioner claimed he had not received notice of the original hearing, but the IJ credited petitioner’s former counsel’s assertion that petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing.

Where petitioner failed to present evidence proving he was unaware of the hearing or contradicting his former counsel’s assertions to the IJ, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the removal proceedings.

Petition is denied.

Diaz v. Garland (MLW No. 80194/Case No. 22-2817 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Withholding of Removal

Asylum; Request to Reopen

Petitioner sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner illegally entered the U.S. around 2000, in 2016 he was convicted of falsifying a driver’s license application and was subjected to removal proceedings. Petitioner applied for asylum, claiming he would be subjected to gang violence upon his return to Mexico as a former member of an anti-gang paramilitary group. The IJ denied the application, finding petitioner evasive and not credible and noting that his application was untimely and that he was ineligible for cancelation of removal because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The IJ also noted that petitioner voluntarily served in the paramilitary group and that anti-gang opinions did not constitute a targetable political opinion.

Where petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of hardship to his family caused by his removal, the BIA was constrained to affirm the denial of his asylum application where he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of an extension of time to file the application.

Petition is denied.

Arroyo-Sosa v. Garland (MLW No. 80188/Case Nos. 22-1334 & 22-2593 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Insurance

General Liability Insurance

Breach of Contract; Failure to Cooperate

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant, plaintiff’s general liability insurer. Defendant issued a policy that insured plaintiff’s facilities for damage, including due to inclement weather. After plaintiff’s facilities were damaged in a severe storm, plaintiff filed a claim. When the parties disputed the amount of loss, plaintiff filed the present lawsuit alleging breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff failed to satisfy its obligations under the policy’s cooperation clause.

Where plaintiff’s failure to submit a proof of loss constituted a prima facie breach of the cooperation clause, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendant because it was prejudiced by the lack of the POL, which would have enabled defendant to understand the basis of plaintiff’s claim and allow it to further investigate the claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Concord Baptist Church of Jefferson City, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Company (MLW No. 80187/Case No. 22-1109 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Epps, J.

Real Property

Oil and Gas Lease

Reservation of Rights; Overconveyance

Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment dismissal of its complaint seeking revenue payments from an oil and gas lease. Successors to a ¾ mineral interest successfully obtained a quiet title judgment against the successor holding the remaining ¼ interest, based on North Dakota law holding that a grant must be satisfied before a reservation if the grantor did not own a large enough mineral interest to satisfy both the grant and the reservation. The ¼ interest holder subsequently leased their interest to plaintiff, while the ¾ interest was conveyed to defendant. Plaintiff did not participate in the quiet title action. The district court concluded that the state court’s judgment applying North Dakota law was correct.

The district court correctly concluded that, due to an overconveyance of mineral rights, plaintiff had not obtained any interest in the property through its leasehold.

Judgment is affirmed.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. v. EOG Resources, Inc. (MLW No. 80199/Case No. 22-2053 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Hovland, J.