8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Sept. 13, 2023

Civil Practice

Jurisdiction

Diversity Of Citizenship; Insurance Coverage

Where a plaintiff in an insurance coverage dispute moved to remand to state court on the basis of lack of federal diversity jurisdiction, asserting that at least 25 of its members were citizens of Illinois, which was defendant’s principal place of business, the case requires a factual determination of whether the parties were diverse.

Remanded.

Great River Entertainment, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company (MLW No. 80493/Case No. 21-3815 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Pratt, J.

Civil Rights

Unlawful Detention

First Amendment Retaliation; Qualified Immunity

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant based on qualified immunity. Defendant, a police officer, stopped plaintiff after he observed him walking on the wrong side of a rural road. Plaintiff refused to identify himself to defendant. After arguing for a few minutes, defendant arrested plaintiff. Plaintiff was eventually released when officers identified him by his credit card. Plaintiff sued, alleging that he was arrested in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to argue with police.

Where defendant undisputedly had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, defendant’s subjective intent was not relevant to his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Grasz, J., dissenting: “The majority concludes that Murphy failed to state a claim because Officer Schmitt had probable cause to arrest Murphy for walking on the wrong side of the road. I respectfully dissent. Because Murphy plausibly asserted that the Sunrise Beach Police Department does not regularly enforce this law, his First Amendment retaliation claim survives under the exception adopted by the Supreme Court in Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019).”

Judgment is affirmed.

Murphy v. Schmitt (MLW No. 80486/Case No. 22-1726 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Harpool, J. 

Contracts

Breach

Insurance Plans; Reimbursement

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment for defendant. The parties had a contract under which plaintiff, a furniture retailer, would sell customers insurance plans offered by defendant. In return, defendant would annually pay plaintiff a portion of the premiums to be used to increase sales of the insurance plans. After plaintiff allowed the parties’ contract to expire, it demanded its annual payment.

Where the contract expressly only entitled plaintiff to the annual payment while the parties’ contract was in effect, defendant had no obligation to send the payment after plaintiff allowed the contract to expire, and there was no evidence that later documents executed by the parties were intended to amend these terms.

Judgment is affirmed.

Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Guardsman US LLC (MLW No. 80489/Case No. 22-2741 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Criminal Law

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Sufficiency of Evidence; Denial of Remote Testimony

Defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to commit money laundering and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. Defendant Maria De La Cruz Nava challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction, while defendant Juan Guzman challenged the district court’s refusal to allow witnesses residing in Mexico to testify via videoconferencing and the admission of evidence of an unrelated assault with a firearm.

Where the record was unclear as to whether the district court applied the correct standard in denying La Cruz-Nava’s motion for a new trial on her drug trafficking conspiracy and firearms counts, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for reconsideration of her motion, and the court reversed her conviction for money laundering due to insufficient evidence. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Guzman’s alibi witnesses to testify via videoconference.

Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

U.S. v. La Cruz-Nava (MLW No. 80488/Case Nos. 22-2914 & 22-2966 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Drug Crimes

Sixth Amendment Violation; Waiver

Defendant appealed his conviction for drug offenses, arguing that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by allowing his attorney to withdraw, failing to appoint a new attorney, and failing to warn defendant about the risks of proceeding pro se.

Where defendant’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, the court enforced the waiver where the record showed defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement, as his issues on appeal, to the extent they raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims, were not cognizable on direct appeal.

Kelly, J., dissenting: “Everyone agrees that Williams has raised a non-jurisdictional issue that falls within the scope of his appeal waiver: he seeks a remand because he was denied counsel at his sentencing hearing. The question is whether enforcing the otherwise valid appeal waiver in this case would result in a miscarriage of justice…Because I believe the complete denial of counsel at sentencing falls within this narrow exception, I respectfully dissent.”

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Williams (MLW No. 80490/Case No. 22-2782 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J.

Drug Distribution

Sentencing Enhancement; Possession of Dangerous Weapon

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug distribution offenses. The district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. Defendant challenged the application of the enhancement.

Where the district court credited testimony from a co-conspirator asserting that defendant possessed a weapon, there was no abuse of discretion in imposing the sentencing enhancement or in declining to sentence defendant below the Guidelines range based on his mitigating factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Spiehs (MLW No. 80487/Case No. 22-2611 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Kopf, J.    

Firearms Offense

Calculation of Guidelines Range; Harmless Error

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearms offense, challenging the district court’s calculation of his Guidelines range.

Where the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors and asserted it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of defendant’s challenge to the Guidelines calculation, any error was harmless.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Salinas (MLW No. 80491/Case No. 22-3655 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Gritzner, J.

Sex Trafficking a Minor

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to sex trafficking a minor pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where defendant’s challenge fell within the scope of his appeal waiver, the court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Chatman (MLW No. 80492/Case No. 23-2145 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Rossiter, J.