8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Oct. 11, 2023

Listen to this article

Administrative

Civil Action

Denial of Reconsideration; Mootness

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his civil action as moot.

Where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff’s claims moot, there was also no error in denying his motion for reconsideration.

Judgment is affirmed.

March v. Small Business Administration (MLW No. 80587/Case No. 23-1501 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Autrey, J.

Civil Practice

Adverse Summary Judgment

Federal Tort Claims Act; Sufficiency Of Evidence

Where appellant challenged adverse summary judgment in her Federal Tort Claims Act case, the grant of summary judgment was proper because the evidence in the record was insufficient to support her negligence claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Bishop v. U.S. (MLW No. 80614/Case No. 23-1225 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.

Civil Rights

§1983

Adverse Summary Judgment; Denial of Additional Time to Respond

Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment in his §1983 action.

Where there was no abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to the summary judgment motion, the district court did not err in granting the motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

Gomez v. Reiter (MLW No. 80589/Case No. 23-2135 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Lange, J.

§1983

Adverse Summary Judgment; Denial of Leave to Amend

Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment entered in his pro se §1983 action.

Where the record supported the entry of summary judgment, there was no abuse of discretion in also denying plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

Judgment is affirmed.

Jacob v. Cotton (MLW No. 80596/Case No. 23-1023 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Kopf, J.

Inmate

Adverse Summary Judgment; Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment that dismissed his complaint.

Where the district court found that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, it properly granted defendants summary judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

Doering v. Hutchinson (MLW No. 80588/Case Nos. 23-1845 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Marshall, J.

Parole Revocation System

Due Process Violation; Court-Ordered Revision

The Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s remedy order that directed MDOC to make further changes to its parole revocation system. Plaintiffs, a group of Missouri parolees, filed the present suit arguing that the system violated their due process rights. Finding some merit in plaintiffs’ contentions, MDOC made changes to the policy. However, the district court entered its order after finding additional problems despite the revisions.

Where some of the remedies ordered by the district court were not tailored to the violations found, the district court abused its discretion in ordering those revisions to the parole revocation system.

Grasz, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: “Though I join the court in vacating the specific remedies it held exceeded the district court’s discretion, I would go further and vacate the entire order, remanding it to the district court to reconsider its remedies according to Morrissey and Gagnon. Because I believe principles of federalism and judicial restraint counsel against judges perpetually peering over state agencies’ shoulders to enforce our own preferred code of procedure, I would instruct the district court to release jurisdiction after its entry of judgment, or at the very least curtail the scope of its retained jurisdiction to only review the implementation of its ordered remedies.

Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Gasca v. Precythe (MLW No. 80581/Case No. 20-3447 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Bough, J.

Prison Inmate

Retaliation; Lack of Physical Injury

Defendant appealed the dismissal of his retaliation claim against multiple detention center officers. The district court concluded that defendant’s claim failed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he had not alleged that he suffered a physical injury.

Where defendant was in custody when he filed his complaint, the PLRA applied to his claim and thus required dismissal of the case due to the lack of physical injury.

Judgment is affirmed.

Glover v. Bostrom (MLW No. 80578/Case No. 23-1104 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Brasel, J.

Summary Judgment

De Novo Review

Where appellant challenged an order granting summary judgment in his civil rights action, following de novo review the appellate court finds no error in the grant of summary judgment.

Davis v. Lay (MLW No. 80615/Case No. 23-1258 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

Consumer Law

FDCPA

Failure to Report Dispute; Lodestar Calculation

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s award of attorney fees. Plaintiff sued defendant, a debt collector attempting to collect a debt plaintiff allegedly owed to her former landlord, claiming that defendant reported the debt to credit reporting agencies without stating that the debt was disputed. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court’s lodestar calculation, arguing that it effectively imposed a “cap” that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Where the district court focused its lodestar calculation on the hours that plaintiff’s counsel reasonably expended on the case, there was no abuse of discretion and the legal fee award was presumptively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

Beckler v. Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC (MLW No. 80584/Case No. 23-1142 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J.

Criminal Law

Aiding and Abetting Drug Distribution

Juror Misconduct; Base Offense Level Calculation

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting drug distribution in a protected location. Defendant argued that the district court should have granted a mistrial for juror misconduct or granted his motion for a new trial due to the sufficiency of the evidence. Defendant also challenged the district court’s calculation of his base offense level.

Where defendant could only speculate that the rest of the jury was tainted by the excused juror’s biased comments, there was no error in denying a mistrial, and the evidence was not so weighty against the jury’s verdict. The court also found that any error in the district court’s sentencing calculation was harmless where it stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the base offense level.

Kelly, J., concurring: “Consequently, I would not so casually dismiss Trawick’s concerns about unconscious or implicit bias. See United States v. Young, 6 F.4th 804, 812 (8th Cir. 2021) (Kelly, J., concurring). In this case, seven jurors told the district court that they heard the discharged juror make comments about race. Yet, when asked, the discharged juror denied it. Maybe he did so because he knew the comments were inappropriate, or maybe because he did not believe that what he said did, in fact, reflect racial bias. Either way, at least one juror in this case was unable to appreciate the reality that even the appearance of racial bias and discrimination mars the jury trial process.”

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Trawick (MLW No. 80592/Case No. 22-2703 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Commitment

Motion for Discharge; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for discharge from his 2005 commitment.

Where there was ample evidence demonstrating that defendant still required commitment to treat mental illness, including his lack of insight into his mental illness and risk of noncompliance with medication, there was no abuse of discretion in denying his motion for discharge.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Wedington (MLW No. 80594/Case No. 22-3360 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Doty, J.

Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs

Calculation of Drug Amount; Guidelines Range

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine and 50 grams of pure methamphetamine. Defendant challenged the district court’s calculation of the amount of drugs defendant was responsible for.

Where the district court credited defendant’s ex-girlfriend’s testimony regarding the amount of drugs she and defendant sold, that quantity was sufficient to put defendant in the higher base offense level.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Amundson (MLW No. 80598/Case No. 23-1093 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Conspiracy to Possess Drugs

Judgment of Acquittal; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed her conviction for drug possession and conspiracy, arguing that the district court should have sua sponte entered judgment of acquittal due to the insufficiency of the evidence. Defendant admitted that she mailed a package containing drugs after the ringleader of the conspiracy began cooperating with the government.

Where various members of the conspiracy, including the ringleader, testified to defendant’s long-term participation, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Goforth (MLW No. 80600/Case No. 23-1341 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J.

Drug Offense

Multiple Conspiracies Instruction; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendants appealed their convictions for drug and firearms offenses. Defendants argued that the district court erred in denying a jury instruction on multiple conspiracies. Defendant Anthony Abari argued that the district court abused its discretion in ordering him shackled during trial and admitting portions of his post-arrest interview. Defendant Kevin Green challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his possession with intent to distribute conviction.

Although there was evidence of multiple conspiracies, other evidence of a single conspiracy meant the lack of a multiple-conspiracies jury instruction was not error, and Abari’s disruptive behavior and threats toward courtroom staff warranted his being restrained during trial, and there was sufficient evidence to support defendants’ convictions.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Green (MLW No. 80582/Case Nos. 22-2869 & 22-2919 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Wollman, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Davis, J., and Wright, J.

Drug Offense

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Appeal Waiver

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where the appeal waiver was valid and applicable to defendant’s challenge to her sentence, the court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Peirce (MLW No. 85079Case No. 23-2114 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Ketchmark, J.

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Calculation of Base Offense Level; Prior Drug Convictions

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses, arguing that the district court erroneously determined that he had at least two prior felony drug convictions that increased his base offense level.

Where the court had previously ruled that defendant’s prior offenses of conviction qualified as prior drug convictions, defendant’s appeal was foreclosed by precedent.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Bradley (MLW No. 80597/Case No. 23-1056 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Revocation of Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Defendant’s supervised release was revoked following multiple violations including testing positive for drugs and possessing large quantities of narcotics. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court should have treated his drug addiction as a mitigating factor.

Where the district court had given defendant multiple opportunities to treat his drug addiction, there was no abuse of discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines revocation sentence where prior leniency had failed to curb defendant’s behavior.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Toombs (MLW No. 80599/Case No. 23-1211 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Fenner, J.

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Career Offender Classification

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and his classification as a career offender.

Where there was no requirement for a particular substance illegal under state law to also be controlled under a distinct federal law, the district court correctly classified defendant as a career offender, and made no abuse of sentencing discretion by appropriately weighing the statutory sentencing factors and imposing a below-Guidelines sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Bush (MLW No. 80601/Case No. 23-1448 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Locher, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Offense Level Increase; Possession in Connection with Another Offense

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea being a felon in possession of a firearm. Although the parties stipulated that defendant’s possession of firearms was relevant conduct for sentencing, he contested the increase of his offense level for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. The district court overruled defendant’s objection and imposed a four-level increase.

Where defendant failed to challenge alleged mistakes in his presentence report, the district court was entitled to adopt every statement as proven, and defendant’s appellate arguments failed where he failed to explain the significance of the alleged mistakes to the district court’s factual findings.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Gray (MLW No. 80593/Case No. 22-3294 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Magnuson, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Within-Guidelines Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, the within-Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Walker (MLW No. 80580/Case No. 23-2128 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Baker, J.

Firearms Offense

Competency; Civil Commitment

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the government’s petition to civilly commit him. After defendant was charged with a firearms offense, a district court in Iowa found that defendant was incompetent to proceed and committed him to the attorney general’s custody for a period of up to four months to determine whether defendant would attain capacity to stand trial. The attorney general ultimately concluded that defendant was unlikely to regain capacity in the foreseeable future, so the government filed a petition for civil commitment. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that he was not lawfully in the attorney general’s custody at the time of the government’s petition.

Where the court had previously rejected defendant’s argument that his custody with the attorney general was unlawfully extended, the court was bound to deny defendant’s appeal.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Newsom (MLW No. 80591/Case No. 22-1381 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Harpool, J.

Forcible Assault of Federal Officer

Evidentiary Rulings; Sentencing Increase

Defendant appealed his conviction for the lesser-included offense of forcible assault of a federal officer, following an incident in which defendant assaulted a Bureau of Indian Affairs officer to facilitate his escape when the officer attempted to execute a tribal arrest warrant. Defendant challenged various evidentiary rulings by the district court and the imposition of a two-level sentencing enhancement for the officer’s “bodily injury.”

Where the officer had not yet put defendant in custody when he asked him questions about the warrant prior to defendant’s attempted flight because the officer was attempting to convince defendant to surrender without forcibly placing him under arrest, the court correctly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statements, and where the officer sought medical treatment after defendant’s assault, the court correctly applied the sentencing enhancement.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. LaRoche (MLW No. 80576/Case No. 22-2969 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Lange, J.

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Revocation of Supervised Release; Validity of Plea

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute, which also resulted in the revocation of defendant’s supervised release. Defendant challenged the validity of his guilty plea and the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Where defendant’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, defendant was precluded from challenging the validity of his plea, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences after it appropriately considered the sentencing factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ruiz (MLW No. 80586/Case No. 23-1440 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Possession with Intent to Distribute

Sentencing Enhancement; Possession of a Dangerous Weapon

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute. Defendant challenged the imposition of a two-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a deadly weapon – namely, a BB gun resembling a handgun.

Where BB guns could cause protracted impairment of bodily members or injuries requiring medical intervention, they were capable of causing serious injury and thus fell within the definition of a deadly weapon.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Shelton (MLW No. 80595/Case No. 22-3425 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Arnold, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Revocation of Supervised Release

Revocation Sentence; Additional Term of Supervised Release

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the imposition of an additional term of supervised release given the potential for defendant’s deportation.

Where there was no plain error in imposing additional supervised release upon an alien defendant subject to deportation, the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Gomez-Celaya (MLW No. 80590/Case No. 23-2401 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Clark, J.

Sentencing

Upward Variation; Court’s Explanation

Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after he violated the conditions of supervised release, the district court provided ample reasons for imposing an upward variance, and the sentence was substantively reasonable, so the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Bertucci (MLW No. 80616/Case No. 23-1513 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Arnold, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Financial Special Conditions

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging certain financial special conditions of supervision in his new term of supervised release.

Where defendant was procedurally barred from challenging the special conditions because they were part of a previous term of supervised release and there were no changed circumstances, the court affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Thomas (MLW No. 80575/Case No. 22-2766 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Sippel, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Incarceration vs. Drug Treatment

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the district court’s decision to incarcerate him rather than order drug treatment.

Where the district court considered defendant’s arguments and the sentencing factors to conclude that defendant’s multiple violations made incarceration more appropriate, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Hughes (MLW No. 80604/Case No. 23-1623 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Reade, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

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

Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and concluded that a within-Guidelines sentence was insufficient to deter defendant’s repeated violations, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ingram (MLW No. 80603/Case Ns. 23-1614 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

Unlawful Possession of Firearm

Sentencing Enhancement; Substantial Risk of Bodily Injury/Death

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant challenged the imposition of a two-level enhancement after the district court found that defendant created a substantial risk of injury or death by throwing a loaded firearm out of his vehicle during flight from police.

Where defendant’s guilty plea provided the factual basis for the district court to conclude defendant threw a loaded pistol out of a moving vehicle, there was no error in imposing a sentencing enhancement.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Deng (MLW No. 80577/Case No. 23-1009 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

Weapons Offense

Guidelines Calculation; Cross Reference

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to an ammunition offense, arguing that the district court improperly applied a cross-reference to attempted second-degree murder in calculating his Guidelines range.

Where case law supported application of the cross-reference on grounds that shooting at a group of people demonstrated intent to kill, the district court did not err in calculating defendant’s Guidelines range.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Brand (MLW No. 80585/Case No. 23-1263 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

Weapons Offense

Sentencing Enhancement; Possession of Firearm in Connection with Another Felony

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to weapons offenses, challenging the imposition of a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense.

Where defendant’s firearm was reasonably accessible, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant could have used it against an intruder looking to steal defendant’s drugs or drug money.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Lopez (MLW No. 80583/Case No. 22-3203 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Clark, J.

Employer-Employee

Discrimination

Adverse Summary Judgment; Motion to Strike

Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment entered in her employment discrimination action and moved to strike.

Where the record supported the entry of summary judgment for defendant, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied the motion to strike as moot.

Judgment is affirmed.

Irving v. Dierbergs Markets, Inc. (MLW No. 80602/Case No. 23-1589 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, White, J.

Pro Se Action

Dismissal; Sufficiency of Evidence

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his pro se employment action.

Where the record demonstrated no basis for reversal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action.

Judgment is affirmed.

Libault v. Mamo (MLW No. 80605/Case No. 23-1802 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.