8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: June 27, 2022

Administrative Law

Medicare

Overpayments

Preliminary Injunction

Where a doctor sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Medicare from recovering alleged overpayments to his medical practice, the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction is affirmed because the doctor failed to show that he was likely to prevail on the merits of his procedural due process claim or that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm.

Judgment is affirmed.

Padda v. Becerra (MLW No. 78479/Case No. 21-2823 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Melloy, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Pitlyk, J. (Scott R. Grubman, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant) (Kyle T. Edwards, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212823P.pdf

Service Contract Act

Violations

Where federal contractor petitioners challenged a finding that they had violated the Service Contract Act and an order that they pay outstanding fringe benefits, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board did not err in concluding that the petitioners violated the SCA by failing to pay their employees’ required health and welfare benefits.

Judgment is affirmed.

Holstad v. U.S. Department of Labor (MLW No. 78480/Case No. 21-3222 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/213222U.pdf

Civil Practice

Federal Tort Claims Act

Medical Malpractice

Expert Testimony

Where appellant challenged an adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se Federal Tort Claims Act action, the district court properly found that the appellant was required to offer expert testimony to prove his medical malpractice claims under relevant state laws, and the requirement did not violate equal protection rights.

Judgment is affirmed.

Rickman v. U.S. (MLW No. 78471/Case No. 22-1051 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/221051U.pdf

Federal Tort Claims Act

Postal Worker Accident

Scope of Employment

Where the trustee for the family of a motorist who was killed in an accident with a postal carrier sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the postal carrier had completed his delivery route and was on his way home at the time of the accident, so he was not acting within the scope of his employment, and the district court did not err in dismissing the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judgment is affirmed.

Blais v. U.S. (MLW No. 78476/Case No. 21-2495 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J. (James Eric Gabrielson, Sartell, MN argued for appellant) (Gregory G. Brooker, Minneapolis, MN argued for appellee).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212495P.pdf

Civil Rights

Child Abuse Registry

Due Process

Qualified Immunity

Where licensed foster parents challenged the grant of summary judgment to state employee defendants on their claim for damages for due process violations, arguing that the defendants failed to give them an opportunity to be heard on allegations of child abuse prior to placing them on the state’s child abuse registry, the judgment is affirmed because the plaintiffs failed to prove that the law was clearly established such that the defendants should reasonably have been expected to know that an interim finding of child abuse pending the interview of plaintiffs violated the right to due process, so the defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Judgment is affirmed.

Hovick v. Patterson (MLW No. 78475/Case No. 21-2493 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Walters, J. (Jeffrey M. Lipman, West Des Moines, IA argued for appellant) (Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Des Moines, IA argued for appellee).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212493P.pdf

Excessive Force

Qualified Immunity

Where an attorney representing a client at immigration proceedings sued an officer from ICE, claiming a seizure through excessive force, the plaintiff did not adequately plead that the officer violated a clearly established right, so the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Judgment is reversed.

Martinez v. Sasse (MLW No. 78472/Case No. 21-1704 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Gaitan Jr., J. (Andrew P. Alexander, Kansas City, MO argued for appellant; Todd Peterson Graves appeared on the brief) (James Emmett Logan, Kansas City, MO argued for appellee; Anthony E. Rothert, Gillian R. Wilcox, Jessie M. Steffan, Kayla M. DeLoach and Molly E. Carney appeared on the brief).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/211704P.pdf

Constitutional Law

COVID-19 Executive Orders

Equal Protection

Business Losses

Where businesses that suffered economic losses due to executive orders closing and limiting their operations during the COVID-19 pandemic brought equal protection claims against the governor and attorney general in their official capacities and a takings clause claim against the governor in his individual capacity, the dismissal of the equal protection claims is affirmed because the issue was moot, and the takings clause claim failed because the plaintiffs failed to show that the law at the time was clearly established so that the governor would have understood that his executive orders constituted a taking, so the governor was entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

Northland Baptist Church of St. Paul v. Walz (MLW No. 78474/Case No. 21-2283 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Wright, J. (James Dickey, Golden Valley, MN argued for appellant) (Elizabeth Catherine Kramer, St. Paul, MN argued for appellee).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212283P.pdf

Criminal Law

Guilty Plea

Rule 11

Where a defendant challenged his guilty plea in a bank fraud case, the defendant failed to meet his burden to show that an alleged Rule 11 error affected his substantial rights, and the district court provided an ample explanation for its decision to impose an upward variance, so the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Harrison (MLW No. 78467/Case No. 21-1962 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota. (Bryan Dean, Bismarck, ND argued for appellant) (Megan Poppen, Rapid City, SD argued for appellee).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/211962P.pdf

Sentencing

Career Offender

Controlled Substances

Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty in a drug conspiracy, the defendant’s prior Iowa convictions qualified as controlled substance offenses for career offender sentencing purposes.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Mongan (MLW No. 78488/Case No. 21-3497 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/213497U.pdf

Sentencing

Continuance

Where a defendant challenged the denial of his second motion to continue his sentencing hearing, the defendant failed to show a compelling reason for a second continuance, and he did not show prejudice from the denial of the motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Sanchez (MLW No. 78478/Case No. 21-2579 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212579U.pdf

Sentencing

Drug Quantity

Substantive Reasonableness

Where defendants convicted for their parts in a drug conspiracy challenged their sentences, the first defendant did not show that the district court erred in assessing the amount of drugs attributable to him; the second defendant’s below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable, and the third defendant’s within-guidelines range was substantively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Teasley (MLW No. 78468/Case No. 21-2674 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Melloy, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212674U.pdf

Sentencing

Guilty Plea

Acceptance of Responsibility

Where a defendant appealed after he entered a plea in a child pornography case, the claim for ineffective assistance of counsel will not be addressed on direct appeal, challenges to the voluntariness of his plea were not preserved for appeal because he failed to present the issue to the district court, and the court did not err in denying a reduction for the acceptance of responsibility.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Wells (MLW No. 78469/Case No. 21-3411 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/213411U.pdf

Sentencing

Loss Calculation

Fraud

Where a defendant who pled guilty in a fraud case challenged his sentence, the district court did not err in finding that the amount of the non-forgivable loans that the defendant applied for under the Economic Injury Disaster Loans program should be included in the loss calculation for purposes of determining the offense level.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Stout (MLW No. 78473/Case No. 21-1938 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/211938U.pdf

Sentencing

Restitution

Where a defendant challenged an award of restitution after he pled guilty in a child pornography case, the district court properly ordered restitution pursuant to the relevant law and the plea agreement, and there was no clear error in the calculation of the award since the defendant did not object to the calculations, agreed to pay restitution to the victims and did not argue on appeal any impact on his substantial rights.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Krisnik (MLW No. 78470/Case No. 21-3814 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/213814U.pdf

Interstate Threat
Sufficiency of Evidence

COVID-19 Delays

Where a defendant appealed his conviction for interstate communication of a threat, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because the government established that the defendant made true threats of present or future violence, that he intended to communicate a threat, and that his statements were not ambiguous or political hyperbole, and the judgment is affirmed because the defendant also did not show error in the jury instructions, and COVID-19 trial delays did not violate the Speedy Trial Act or the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Leveke (MLW No. 78487/Case No. 21-1335 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J. (Heather Quick, Cedar Rapids, IA argued for appellant) (MacKenzie Benson Tubbs, Des Moines, IA argued for appellee).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/211335P.pdf

Immigration

Removal

Due Process

Hearing

Where a petitioner sought review of an order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an order of removal, there was no due process violation, and the petitioner’s admission of the charges and concession of removability at the hearing could be admitted at a subsequent hearing.

Petition denied.

Holmes v. Garland (MLW No. 78477/Case No. 21-2135 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Thomas R. Anderson, Minneapolis, MN for petitioner) (Sharon Michele Clay, Washington, D.C., for respondent).

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/06/212135P.pdf