8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Sept. 17, 2025

Criminal Law

Firearm Offense

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Upward Variance

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a firearm offense.

Where the district court imposed an upward variance after making an individualized assessment, the court found no abuse of discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Burton (MLW No. 83755/Case No. 25-1643 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

Hobbs Act Robbery

Mistaken Identity; Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for burglary, Hobbs Act robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was one of the perpetrators of a burglary. Defendant also challenged the reasonableness of his sentence.

Where the government presented forensic evidence showing that defendant was the major contributor to the DNA sample found on a firearm recovered from the robbery, there was sufficient evidence, including defendant’s changing story and the fact that he lived near the scene of the robbery, for the jury to infer defendant’s involvement. Defendant’s below-Guidelines sentence was also presumptively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Davis (MLW No. 83754/Case No. 23-2978 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Bough, J., and Ketchmark, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; 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.

Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of discretion in imposing an additional term of supervised release.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Loesel (MLW No. 83758/Case No. 25-1961 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the within-Guidelines sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.

Where the district court cited defendant’s pattern of noncompliance to impose a longer prison term than previously imposed, there was no abuse of discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Smith (MLW No. 83759/Case No. 25-2167 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tunheim, J.

Employer-Employee

Action Against Employer

Mediated Settlement; Dismissal

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order enforcing a mediated settlement agreement and dismissing plaintiff’s action.

The court affirmed for the reasons expressed by the district court.

Judgment is affirmed.

Ross v. Pure Fishing, Inc. (MLW No. 83757/Case No. 24-3586 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Bough, J.

Race Discrimination

Retaliation; Adverse Summary Judgment

Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in her race discrimination and retaliation claim against her former employer.

Where the district court adequately explained the basis for summary judgment, the court affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Thomspon v. Conagra Brands, Inc. (MLW No. 83753/Case No. 25-1309 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J.

Torts

Wrongful Death

Law Enforcement Shooting; Federal Tort Claims Act

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint against the government. After discharging a shotgun in a parking lot, BIA officers detained Ryan Gipp. Ryan, who was under the influence, refused to follow the officers’ orders, leading to an altercation, during which Ryan hid behind the officers’ truck. Seeing Ryan pull out a shiny black object, one of the officers shot and killed Ryan. Applying North Dakota law, the district court found a statute immunizing officers who use “necessary and appropriate” force, and held that it was coextensive with the Fourth Amendment.

Where officers had been summoned due to Ryan’s discharge of a firearm and were unable to subdue him with a taser when he became combative, it was reasonable for the officers to employ deadly force when Ryan held what appeared to be a firearm.

Judgment is affirmed.

Gipp v. Webb (MLW No. 83756/Case No. 24-1379 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Traynor, J.