8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: July 26, 2023

Civil Practice

Personal Jurisdiction

Minimum Contacts; Copyright Infringement

Where the district court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims of copyright infringement, tortious interference with contract and unfair competition, the court properly found that the California corporation lacked minimum contacts with Iowa, and the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Kendall Hunt Publishing Company v. The Learning Tree Publishing Corporation (MLW No. 80233/Case No. 22-1885 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Wollman, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Mahoney, J.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Wrongful Termination; Bad Faith Conduct

Where plaintiff, who claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting safety issues, challenged the finding that he had engaged in a bad faith delay of the administrative proceedings, the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed because the district court did not specifically find that the plaintiff’s conduct before the relevant deadline caused the agency to miss its deadline to act in the matter.

Vacated; remanded.

Wilson v. CTW Transportation Services, Inc. (MLW No. 80236/Case No. 22-3049 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Civil Rights

Detainee

Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need; Qualified Immunity

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued defendant, claiming that he was deliberately indifferent to her seizure disorder when he arrested her for DWI. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered multiple seizures while detained. The district court denied qualified immunity for defendant, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant knew about plaintiff’s seizure disorder and her need for medication.

Where defendant attended to plaintiff and asked her whether she suffered from medical problems, plaintiff’s failure to advise defendant of her seizure disorder, combined with emergency medical personnel’s decision not to transport plaintiff to the hospital, meant that defendant was not on fair notice that his failure to seek additional medical care for plaintiff would amount to deliberate indifference.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Martin v. Turner (MLW No. 80229/Case No. 22-1449 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Marshall, J.

Excessive Force

Canine Warning; Qualified Immunity

Where a plaintiff claimed that her son was the victim of excessive force when a police officer did not give a warning that his dog was trained to bite and hold, the denial of qualified immunity is affirmed because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the adequacy of the warnings and the law was clearly established that the officer had to give a warning and provide the suspect with a chance to surrender.

Judgment is affirmed.

Adams v. City of Cedar Rapids (MLW No. 80239/Case No. 22-3234 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Roberts, J.

Warrantless Entry

Exigent Circumstances

Where plaintiffs sued police officers for allegedly violating their Fourth Amendment rights by making a warrantless entry into their apartment, summary judgment for the plaintiffs is reversed because the officers had probable cause to believe domestic violence had occurred based on a 911 call and information gathered from the plaintiffs’ neighbors, and the circumstances created an exigency which justified the warrantless entry to provide assistance or to prevent harm.

Judgment is reversed.

Cotten v. Miller (MLW No. 80235/Case No. 22-2872 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tunheim, J.

Criminal Law

Attempted Sex Trafficking of a Minor

Judgment of Acquittal; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and his conviction for attempted sex trafficking of a minor, raising a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. At trial, defendant claimed that he was simultaneously negotiating with four individuals for sexual services, one of whom was an undercover officer posing as a minor, and thus he got confused and did not realize he had agreed to meet with a minor.

Where the evidence showed that defendant negotiated with the undercover officer for several days, who reminded defendant multiple times of the fictitious person’s age, and defendant was arrested with items specifically requested by the undercover officer, there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s knowledge and intent.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Lopez (MLW No. 80222/Case No. 22-3044 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography

Child Exploitation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to produce child pornography and child exploitation, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court properly weighed the relevant statutory sentencing factors and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence, defendant’s sentence was presumptively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Butler (MLW No. 80223/Case No. 22-3643 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography

Child Exploitation; Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after she pled guilty to conspiracy to produce child pornography and child exploitation. On appeal, defendant challenged the reasonableness of her sentence.

Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors and varied below the Guidelines range, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Butler (MLW No. 80224/Case No. 23-1438 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Counterfeiting Securities

Motion to Suppress Evidence; Appeal Waiver

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, following a guilty plea to counterfeiting securities pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver.

Where the motion to dismiss fell within the scope of defendant’s appeal waiver, the court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Halliday (MLW No. 80216/Case No. 23-1215 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Ross, J.

Drug Conspiracy

Denial of Minor-Role Reduction; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for participating in a drug conspiracy, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the district court properly denied a minor-role reduction because defendant was involved with storing drugs, making wire transfers, and driving people to and from drug transactions, the overall sentence was substantively reasonable since the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Godinez-Contreras (MLW No. 80220/Case No. 22-2667 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.

Drug Offenses

Attribution of Drugs; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession and distribution of methamphetamine and conspiracy. Defendant and his brother became the subject of a drug investigation after they participated in a controlled buy with an undercover officer. Following the buy, police executed a search warrant on the brothers’ residence, finding additional methamphetamine inside defendant’s brother’s bedroom closet. On appeal, defendant challenged the imposition of sentencing enhancements based in part on the attribution of drugs found in defendant’s brother’s closet, along with the overall substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court expressly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained some of defendant’s procedural objections, any error was harmless, and defendant’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence merely took issue with the district court’s weighing of the statutory sentencing factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Neri (MLW No. 80215/Case No. 22-2932 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Drug Trafficking

Search Warrant; Confrontation Clause

Where a defendant challenged his convictions in a drug trafficking case, the district court did not err in finding that inaccuracies in the search warrant application did not affect the existence of probable cause to issue the warrant, and the court did not err in admitting evidence of an earlier controlled substance conviction, and the judgment is affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the defendant’s confrontation clause claim was properly rejected.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Jones (MLW No. 80232/Case No. 22-1816 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

eTalk Phone Evidence

Authenticity

Where a defendant in a methamphetamine case argued that the district court abused its discretion when it overruled his objections to the admission of evidence from an eTalk flip phone, circumstantial evidence could be used to authenticate the phone, and the jury could determine that the defendant controlled the phone while it was activated, and admission of a photo found on the phone was proper because it demonstrated an awareness of and involvement in methamphetamine trafficking.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Wise (MLW No. 80237/Case No. 22-3140 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Revocation of Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release for a subsequent conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his aggregate sentence, arguing that the district court placed too much weight on the seriousness of his offense and criminal history.

Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors, including prior convictions that accrued no criminal history or criminal history already accounted for by the Guidelines, there was no abuse of discretion in making defendant’s revocation and new conviction sentences consecutive due to his extensive violent criminal record.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Manuel (MLW No. 80221/Case No. 22-2688 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Kays, J.

Firearms Offense

Calculation of Base Level; Crime of Violence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearms offense. Defendant argued that the district court miscalculated his base offense level by concluding that his prior Missouri conviction for resisting arrest by using or threatening the use of force constituted a “crime of violence.” The district court also varied downward from the Guidelines range.

Where the statute of conviction for defendant’s prior Missouri offense was divisible, the district court correctly concluded defendant had committed a crime of violence where his charging documents indicated that he was convicted of the portion of the statute involving the use or threatened use of force.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Brown (MLW No. 80230/Case No. 22-2308 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Perry, J.

Firearms Offense

Motion to Suppress Evidence; Legality of Traffic Stop

Defendant appealed his conviction for a firearms offense following his conditional guilty plea. A motorist called 911 to report a pickup truck driving erratically. A state patrol officer spotted the truck and initiated a traffic stop when it attempted to enter a closed weigh station. The officer observed defendant with marijuana and a bong in the front seat; a later search recovered firearms and a silencer.

Where the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe defendant had committed traffic offenses based on the 911 caller’s report describing erratic driving consistent with alcohol or drug impairment, and the caller had identified himself by name and phone number, the traffic stop was justified.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Vannoy (MLW No. 80231/Case No. 22-2676 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Gerrard, J.

Motion To Suppress

Sentencing; Acceptance Of Responsibility

Where a defendant in a controlled substance case challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, under the totality of the circumstances the affidavit established probable cause to believe that the defendant was involved in methamphetamine distribution and that evidence of this crime would be found in his home and cars, so the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and the denial of the defendant’s request for a reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was appropriate because the defendant had absconded to Mexico for eight years before surrendering to authorities.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Sandoval (MLW No. 80234/Case No. 22-2146 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

Possession of Firearm by Felon

Crime of Violence; Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that his prior Missouri conviction for felony resisting arrest by force was not a “crime of violence.”

Even if defendant’s Missouri conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence, any error was harmless where the district court expressly stated it would have imposed the same sentence, regardless of the Guidelines range calculation, based on defendant’s characteristics.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Houston (MLW No. 80219/Case No. 22-663 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Ross, J.

Sentencing

Importation Enhancement; Aggravating Role

Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a methamphetamine case, the district court did not err in applying an enhancement for the importation of drugs because the record was sufficient to show that the drug came from Mexico, and there was no error in imposing an enhancement for having a supervisory role in the offense.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Surprenant (MLW No. 80238/Case No. 22-3207 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, J.

Sentencing

Supervised Release; Revocation

Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed by the district court after a second revocation of supervised release, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a 24-month sentence was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise appropriate considering the defendant’s history and characteristics.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Duke (MLW No. 80255/Case No. 22-3165 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

Environmental

Water Contamination

Coal Tar Refiner Liability; Conditional Dismissal

Plaintiffs, several cities in Minnesota, filed suit against refiners of coal tar and manufacturers of pavement sealers that used refined coal tar, alleging that a chemical in the tar contaminated the cities’ stormwater ponds. The district court dismissed all claims against the refiners and some of the claims against the manufacturers. After the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of their claims against the refiners, plaintiffs entered a “conditional” dismissal of their claims against the manufacturers, under which the cities could reinstate their claims if the court reversed the dismissal of claims against the refiners.

Where conditional dismissal did not leave claims in the same posture as if they had never been brought against the dismissed defendant, a conditional dismissal could not create an appealable final judgment against another defendant.

Kelly, J., dissenting: “I believe we have jurisdiction here because, by operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Cities’ dismissal of their pending claims against the remaining manufacturer-defendants was not, in fact, conditional. And any private agreement between the parties claiming something to the contrary is not binding on this court—or on the district court if the case were to be remanded.”

Appeal is dismissed.

In re: Municipal Stormwater Pond Coordinated Litigation (MLW No. 80213/Case No. 21-3177 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Menendez, J., and Ericksen, J.

Immigration

Cancellation of Removal

Exceptional Hardship; Weight of Evidence

Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s order affirming an IJ’s decision to deny petitioner’s request for cancellation of removal. In support of his request, petitioner argued that his removal would cause extreme hardship to his daughter by affecting their close relationship and his ability to pay child support. The IJ found that the emotional hardship that would be suffered by petitioner’s daughter did not rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

Where aliens had no protected liberty interest in cancellation of removal, they could not bring a claim alleging that deficiencies in the transcript affected an appeal from a IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s factual findings.

Petition is dismissed in part and denied in part.

Barboza-Cruz v. Garland (MLW No. 80214/Case No. 22-2745 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Insurance

Insurance Agent

Negligence Procurement of Insurance; Breach of Contract

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff owned commercial property that it sold to a company who operated a bar in the property. Under the sale, plaintiff retained title until the purchaser paid the purchase price. The purchaser was also obligated to obtain fire insurance for the purchase price which named plaintiff as the insured. The purchaser obtained a policy from defendant; the policy required the property to have a working automatic sprinkler system. The policy also did not name plaintiff as an insured or payee. The property was destroyed by a fire when the sprinkler system was inoperative. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, arguing that plaintiff’s prior suit against the insurer disposed of the operative issues in the case; namely, that plaintiff did not qualify as a mortgagee and that the sprinkler endorsement would have barred coverage even if plaintiff were a named insured.

Where noncompliance with the policy was the proximate cause of the denial of coverage, defendant’s failure to secure a policy naming plaintiff as insured or notifying plaintiff that it was not a named insured was not a bar to recovery.

Judgment is affirmed.

Boulevard RE Holdings, LLC v. Mixon Insurance Agency, Inc. (MLW No. 80218/Case No. 22-1895 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Pitlyk, J.

Long-Term Disability Insurance

Termination of Benefits; Residual Functionality

Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant administered a long-term disability insurance plan for plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff resigned and filed an LTD claim after being diagnosed with a genetic, degenerative neurological disease. In 2013, defendant adopted a narrower definition of “total disability.” However, over the next two years two investigator nurses concluded that plaintiff lacked the ability to work. But a third nurse concluded that plaintiff could perform various sedentary jobs, leading to defendant terminating plaintiff’s LTD benefits. Defendant’s IME also concluded that plaintiff could perform sedentary work. The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, ruling that defendant’s delay in deciding plaintiff’s administrative appeal was an “egregious procedural irregularity” that violated ERISA because the delay was solely due to obtaining an IME that could plausibly justify the denial of benefits.

Where defendant had collected substantial evidence showing that plaintiff had the capacity to perform sedentary jobs despite her condition, any decisional delay or conflict of interest by defendant did not constitute an abuse of discretion in denying the claim.

Melloy, J., dissenting: “Applying an abuse-of-discretion analysis, I conclude that the record does not provide substantial evidence to support Reliance’s decision—regardless of how the procedural irregularity may factor into the analysis. McIntyre’s treating physician provided strong evidence showing McIntyre could not work full time because her condition causes fatigue which requires frequent breaks. Nothing Reliance discusses in their letter denying benefits—including Dr. Bushara’s report, Ms. Vroman’s report, or the surveillance report—properly rebuts the treating physician’s finding. Additionally, Reliance relies on reports containing conclusions that do not logically follow from the report’s findings.”

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

McIntyre v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (MLW No. 80228/Case Nos. 21-3063 & 22-1296 – 20 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tunheim, J.

Real Estate

Quiet Title

Tax Auction; Federal Deeds of Trust

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of the government’s motion to dismiss. HUD held two deeds of trust on a residence as security for home equity loans. When the couple that owned the residence fell behind on property taxes, the county tax collector put the property up for auction, where it was purchased by a party who sold it to plaintiff. Concerned about the marketability of title, plaintiff filed a quiet title action seeking a declaration that all other interests in the property had been extinguished. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, ruling that there could not have been a foreclosure without a judicial sale.

Where the county tax collector’s auction did not occur under the authority or supervision of the court, it did not constitute a “judicial sale” that would extinguish all other interests in the property, and plaintiff’s predecessor’s receipt of a deed, assigned to plaintiff, meant it was too late to order a judicial sale because plaintiff could not purchase an interest it already held.

Judgment is affirmed.

Show Me State Premium Homes, LLC v. McDonnell (MLW No. 80217/Case No. 22-1894 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Pitlyk, J.