Administrative

SNAP Program

Disqualification

Sufficiency of Evidence

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of the government. The USDA permanently disqualified plaintiff from the SNAP program after concluding that plaintiff had illegally trafficked SNAP benefits. Plaintiff filed suit to reverse its disqualification. The district court found that plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof to show that the USDA’s action was improper or invalid.

Although plaintiff bore the burden of proof in the case, the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to provide transaction-specific evidence for each transaction challenged by the USDA. Instead, plaintiff could meet its burden of proof with evidence that would eliminate suspicions for a certain pattern of transactions identified by the USDA.

Shepherd, J., dissenting: “I agree with the Court that a store may satisfy its burden of proof with evidence that ‘serves to reduce the suspicion associated with a certain pattern of transactions the USDA identified.’ However, I dissent only because I believe that the district court in fact applied this standard.”

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

Euclid Market Inc. v. U.S. (MLW No. 79459/Case No. 22-1301 – 15 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Schelp, J. (Jay L. Kanzler, of St. Louis, MO for appellant) (Karin A. Schute, AUSA, of St. Louis, MO for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/221301P.pdf

Civil Rights

§1983

Prison Inmate

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Plaintiff, a state prison inmate, appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in his §1983 action.

Where plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the district court properly dismissed the case on summary judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

Bishop v. Huff (MLW No. 79467/Case No. 22-1452 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Baker, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/221452U.pdf

Denial of Admission to the Bar

§1983

§1985

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action challenging the denial of his admission to the Minnesota Bar.

Where the district court stated proper reasons for dismissal of plaintiff’s case, the court affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Ristow v. Peterson (MLW No. 79457/Case No. 22-3029 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Nelson, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/223029U.pdf

Criminal Law

Aggravated Sexual Abuse

Unanimity Instruction

Forensic Interviewer Testimony

Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in failing to sua sponte issue a specific unanimity instruction to the jury and improperly admitted testimony from the forensic interviewer to bolster the victim’s credibility, and that the government’s closing argument distorted the burden of proof and mischaracterized defendant’s theory of the case.

Where jurors need not agree on a specific sexual act to reach a unanimous verdict, there was no error in the failure to give a specific unanimity instruction, and any other errors during trial were harmless given the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Poitra (MLW No. 79481/Case No. 21-3262 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Welte, J. (Christopher P. Bellmore, AFPD, of Fargo, ND for appellant) (Clayton Paul Solomon, U.S. DOJ, of Washington, D.C. for appellee; Matthew D. Greenley, AUSA, of Fargo, ND on the brief)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/213262P.pdf

Criminal Law

Assault of a Spouse or Intimate Partner

Revocation of Supervised Release

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release and his revocation sentence. After pleading guilty to assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse or intimate partner, defendant’s supervised release was revoked three times. On the third revocation, defendant admitted to using controlled substances and possessing a dangerous weapon. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting the parties’ joint recommendation for a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range and instead imposing an above-Guidelines sentence.

Where the district court based its sentencing decision on the fact that prior revocation sentences at the top of the Guidelines range had failed to deter defendant’s behavior, it had a sufficient basis to sentence above the Guidelines range to reflect defendant’s escalating criminal conduct.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Plenty Chief (MLW No. 79456/Case No. 22-2229 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/222229U.pdf

Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine

Calculation of Drug Quantity

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. The district court varied downward in imposing sentence. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred in its calculation of the drug quantities and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

Where the district court could rely on grand jury testimony, there was sufficient evidence to support the calculation of drug quantities distributed by defendant, and the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence after varying downward and considering all relevant statutory factors.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Ford (MLW No. 79454/Case No. 22-1227 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/221227U.pdf

Drug and Firearms Offenses

Calculation of Guidelines Range

“Crime of Violence”

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses. Defendant argued that the district court miscalculated his Guidelines range by determining that a past Missouri conviction was a “crime of violence.”

Where displaying an operational weapon in an angry or threatening manner constituted a threatened use of physical force against another person, the district court correctly concluded that defendant’s prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence in determining his base offense level.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. McDonald (MLW No. 79460/Case No. 22-1417 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Sippel, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/221417U.pdf

Drug and Firearms Offenses

“Stash-House” Sentencing Enhancement

Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearms offenses. Defendant challenged the imposition of a two-level “stash house” sentencing enhancement and the overall reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the evidence proved that defendant maintained motel rooms and a duplex for manufacturing and distributing drugs, the district court did not err in imposing the sentencing enhancement, and defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court sufficiently considered statutory factors, including the fact that defendant’s drugs killed two people, to vary upward from the Guidelines range.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Owens (MLW No. 79483/Case No. 21-3898 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/213898U.pdf

Drug Offense

Plea Agreement

Appeal Waiver

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where defendant’s appellate issues fell within the scope of the appeal waiver in his plea agreement, the court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Wells (MLW No. 79469/Case No. 22-3412 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Welte, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/223412U.pdf

Firearms Offenses

Sufficiency of Evidence

Armed Career Criminal Designation

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the district court following the denial of his motion for a new trial, after the jury convicted defendant of firearms offenses and the district court revoked defendant’s supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. Defendant also alleged that the government committed Brady violations and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, defendant argued that the district court erred in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal.

Where intervening case law would permit the district court to find that defendant’s prior state law convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the court held that remand for resentencing was necessary.

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

U.S. v. Smart (MLW No. 79484/Case Nos. 22-1129 & 22-1131 – 18 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J. (Angela L. Campbell, of Des Moines, IA for appellant) (MacKenzie Benson Tubbs, AUSA, of Des Moines, IA for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/221129P.pdf

Fraud

Aggravated Identity Theft

Judgment of Acquittal

Defendants appealed their convictions for fraud offenses, arguing that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment of acquittal on their charge of aggravated identity theft. Defendants contended that a signature did not constitute a “means of identification.”

Where a forged signature could constitute a means of identification under the statute, the district court correctly denied defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Komp (MLW No. 79464/Case Nos. 22-3198 & 22-3222 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Holmes, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/223198U.pdf

Murder and Drug Offenses

First Step Act

Concurrent Sentence Doctrine

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for First Step Act relief. Defendant was convicted of murder and drug offenses he committed as a minor. After being resentenced following the vacatur of his mandatory life sentences, defendant sought First Step Act relief, arguing that the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the mandatory minimum penalties for one of his drug convictions. The district court denied relief, invoking the concurrent sentence doctrine to find that any relief would not reduce defendant’s sentence given the concurrent sentence on his murder convictions.

Where the district court correctly found that any relief would not reduce the time served by defendant, it could exercise its discretion to decline to grant any further reduction as defendant would not be prejudiced by the denial of his motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Jefferson (MLW No. 79482/Case No. 21-3875 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Davis, J. (Douglas Altman, of Minneapolis, MN for appellant) (Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, AUSA, of St. Paul, MN for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/213875P.pdf

Possession of Firearm by Felon

Withdrawal of Guilty Plea

Mandatory Minimum Sentence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon but moved to withdraw his plea when the probation office determined that defendant had prior convictions that qualified him for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA. The district court denied defendant’s motion, noting that the plea agreement expressly advised defendant that he might be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. The district court found that defendant had qualifying offenses and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence.

Where defendant expressly acknowledged the possibility that he could be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, he lacked a basis to withdraw his guilty plea, and his prior unlawful discharge conviction qualified as a violent felony because his indictment specifically charged him with knowingly firing a gun at other people.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Harris (MLW No. 79485/Case No. 22-1475 – 7 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Limbaugh, J. (Paul Edwards Sims, of St. Louis, MO for appellant) (Jennifer L. Szczucinski, AUSA, of St. Louis, MO for appellee)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/221475P.pdf

Revocation of Supervised Release

Revocation Sentence

Reasonableness of Sentence

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

Where the district court properly evaluated the statutory sentencing factors, defendant’s sentence was not unreasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Trawick (MLW No. 79465/Case No. 22-3223 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Reade, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/223223U.pdf

Criminal Law

Rule 36 Motion

Closed Criminal Case

Abuse of Discretion

Defendant appealed the denial of motion for relief under Rule 36 in his closed criminal case.

Where defendant was seeking to correct more than a scrivener’s error, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Turner (MLW No. 79463/Case No. 22-2681 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Ross, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/222681U.pdf

Tax Evasion

Within-Guidelines Sentence

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to tax evasion. The presentence investigation report calculated defendant’s Guidelines range at 12 to 18 months after noting his stage-4 kidney and end-stage renal diseases and his removal from liver and kidney transplant lists. The district court sentenced defendant to 14 months at a facility capable of providing defendant the medical care he required.

Where the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, the sentence was not unreasonable simply because the district court exercised its discretion not to afford more weight to defendant’s health condition.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Wood (MLW No. 79461/Case No. 22-2091 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Holmes, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/222091U.pdf

Elections

Ballot Initiatives

Filing Deadline

First Amendment

The parties cross-appealed the district court’s judgment that permanently enjoined defendants from enforcing South Dakota’s statutory filing deadline for petition initiatives. The district court concluded that the filing deadline for petitions to initiate statutes violated the First Amendment, although the deadline for initiatives to amend the South Dakota Constitution did not. The district court enjoined enforcement of the deadline and crafted a new one.

Where both filing deadlines failed lesser scrutiny standards, the district court erred in its judgment as there was no legal basis for distinguishing between both types of initiatives. The district court further erred in crafting a new deadline and should have simply enjoined enforcement of the existing statutes.

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

SD Voice v. Noem (MLW No. 79466/Case Nos. 21-3195/21-3197 – 16 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J. (Clifton E. Katz, AAG, of Pierre, SD for appellants) (James D. Leach, of Rapid City, SD for appellees)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/213195P.pdf

Employer-Employee

Failure to Hire

Age Discrimination

Sex Discrimination

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Defendant chose not to hire plaintiff when it acquired her employer. Prior to the acquisition, plaintiff, a 55-year-old woman, had been employed for 17 years and had one of the longest routes. Plaintiff was also the only female at her position in the company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging age and sex discrimination.

Where defendant hired multiple operators over the age of 40, plaintiff could not make a claim of age discrimination, but her sex discrimination claim could proceed where the decision to hire less-experienced male candidates raised a triable issue as to the motivation behind defendant’s hiring decisions.

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

Connors v. Merit Energy Company, LLC (MLW No. 79455/Case No. 22-2080 – 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/23/02/222080U.pdf

Federal Railroad Safety Act

Employer Retaliation

Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Defendant appealed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and filing costs in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff sued defendant, his employer, under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, alleging that defendant retaliated against him for filing an injury report by opening an investigation and disciplining plaintiff for purportedly failing to immediately report his injury. After three trials on liability, a jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The district court awarded plaintiff partial attorneys’ fees and certain litigation costs. On appeal, defendant argued for a further reduction of attorneys’ fees.

Where plaintiff succeeded on the primary issue in his complaint and the fees were necessitated by the procedural history of the case rather than over lawyering, no decrease of fees was necessary for those reasons. However, the district court erred in failing to reduce fees from the first trial that was overturned because of plaintiff’s requested jury instructions.

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

Blackorby v. BNSF Railway Company (MLW No. 79458/Case No. 21-3330 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Welte, J. (Bryan P. Neal, of Dallas, TX for appellant; Emily Fitzgerald, of Dallas, TX and Keith M. Goman, of Denver, CO on the brief) (Jeff R. Dingwall, of San Diego, CA for appellee; Erica Mynarich, of Springfield, MO and Charles Kiel Garella, of Charlotte, NC on the brief)

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/213330P.pdf

Immigration

Asylum

Withholding of Removal

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal from an IJ’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

Where there was substantial evidence to support the BIA’s determination that petitioner could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the agency correctly denied relief.

Petition is denied.

Gonzalez-Raymundo v. Garland (MLW No. 79468/Case No. 22-2395 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/222395U.pdf

Immigration

Cancellation of Removal

Reopening of Proceedings

Motion to Reconsider

Petitioner appealed the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider the denial of her second motion to reopen her removal proceedings, after her application for cancellation of removal was denied.

Where petitioner’s reconsideration motion was based on the same arguments already rejected by the BIA, it did not abuse its discretion to deny reconsideration.

Petition is denied.

Mar v. Garland (MLW No. 79462/Case No. 22-2501 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/222501U.pdf

Insurance

Car Insurance

Discrimination

Retaliation

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his discrimination and retaliation claim against his car insurance company and its lawyers.

Where plaintiff’s complaint merely asserted conclusory allegations and failed to establish a causal connection between protected activity and the alleged adverse action, the district court properly dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Landrith v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. (MLW No. 79486/Case No. 22-3022 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Kays, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/02/223022U.pdf