U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of costs to the prevailing defendants, concluding that the challenged deposition, transcript, video, and electronic-copying costs were permissible on this record under the governing cost statutes and rules.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment rejecting the Does’ constitutional challenges to Missouri’s sex-offender registration scheme. It concluded that the Does had not shown the scheme to be cruel and unusual or an ex post facto law, had not adequately developed their due process, equal protection, and First…

The Eighth Circuit rejected Celestine’s arguments that his supervised-release term had expired before the violations and that the violations were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded for entry of judgment on the plaintiff’s deliberate‑indifference claim against Dr. Sloan, holding that the complaint did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference.

The court held that Pratt’s appeal waiver was enforceable and covered his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After independently reviewing the record, it found no non-frivolous appellate issue outside the waiver, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation of supervised release and eight‑month prison sentence, holding that the revocation was correctly treated as mandatory under 18 U.S.C.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Phillips’s 57-month sentence. It held that the four-level firearm enhancement applied because Phillips possessed a firearm while fleeing an officer, giving the firearm at least the potential to facilitate his Iowa felony of interference with official acts.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Fitch’s motion for a new trial, concluding that the jury’s award of no future lost earnings was supported by conflicting expert testimony and did not create a miscarriage of justice.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment for Creighton on Florek’s disability-discrimination claims, concluding that the university did not fail to provide the accommodations she adequately requested and that she did not show its disciplinary reasons were pretextual.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's within‑Guidelines sentence for a drug offense, finding no abuse of discretion and granting the defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea.

Bradshaw appealed her sentence following a guilty plea to a firearm offense, arguing that the district court improperly applied a sentencing enhancement and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Wilson’s below-Guidelines sentence after he pleaded guilty to fraud. It concluded that any procedural error from considering his ability to pay restitution did not affect his substantial rights because the district court said the victim’s loss was driving the sentence, and the record did…

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in appeals brought by objectors in a class-action case. It stated that the merits had already been resolved in a prior related appeal and affirmed for the reasons given there.

The court held that Jensen plausibly alleged Article III standing for damages and injunctive relief based on the time and money he spent responding to Board investigations and the chilling effect those investigations had on his speech.

The supplied text is a clerk’s transmittal letter stating that the court issued an opinion and entered judgment in accordance with it. The opinion itself is not included, so its decision and reasoning cannot be determined.

The supplied text is a clerk's notice stating that the court issued an opinion and entered judgment, but it does not include the opinion itself. The substantive decision, reasoning, and disposition therefore cannot be determined from this text.

The court affirmed Mangum’s sentence, concluding that it was not substantively unreasonable and that the district court did not plainly err by requiring sex-offender treatment as a condition of supervised release.

The supplied text is a clerk’s notice stating that the court issued an opinion and entered judgment, but it does not include the opinion itself. The legal issues decided, the court’s reasoning, and the disposition cannot be determined from this text.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Bradley’s § 1983 action, concluding that the complaint sought relief from state child-support orders and therefore fell within the Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Grady and Hickman, reversed summary judgment for Castleberry and Parsons because genuine issues of material fact existed, and held the injunctive claims moot, remanding for further proceedings on damages claims.

The court dismissed Lucas’s appeal because his appeal waiver was valid, enforceable, and applicable to his challenges to the sentence and Guidelines calculation, and enforcing it would not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s 126‑month sentence for Jeremy Martin, holding that the court’s factual finding that child‑support obligations motivated his unlawful betting was a permissible inference and not a clear error, and that the sentencing enhancements and consecutive sentencing were proper.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that while the plaintiff proved a substantial risk of harm, the defendants did not act with deliberate indifference and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity, so no constitutional violation occurred.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of compassionate release relief, holding that a non‑retroactive change in the law does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and that any ACCA enhancement error is harmless.

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded, holding that the Three Affiliated Tribes District Court has jurisdiction over the dispute arising from the side‑letter agreements between WPX Energy and tribal members, that WPX Energy is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its…

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's 180‑month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, finding that the defendant's three prior residential burglaries were committed on separate occasions and thus satisfy the ACCA's three‑offense requirement.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's conviction of Francis Lee Dubray for burglary and assault, as well as the 70‑month sentence. The court rejected Dubray's challenges to evidentiary exclusions, a proposed jury instruction, the admission of photographs, the denial of a judgment of acquittal, and the…

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the traffic stop of Medina-Martinez was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the officer had probable cause based on a suspected windshield obstruction and a minor traffic violation.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for the former mayor and interim director of public safety, holding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an adverse employment action and a violation of clearly established equal protection law.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment granting State Farm’s appraisal award of $52,482.81. The court held that under Minnesota law the appraisal award is binding and not subject to further review because it was not ambiguous.

Petitioner Chanthavong, a Nigerian citizen, appealed the district court’s dismissal of her habeas petition challenging mandatory immigration detention following an aggravated‑felony conviction.

The court reversed summary judgment for XTO, holding that the Commerce policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage and that XTO did not satisfy the exception’s express 21-day reporting condition.

The court affirmed West’s 112-month sentence, rejecting his facial Second Amendment challenges to the two firearm-possession statutes as foreclosed by circuit precedent. It also upheld enhancements for attempting to obstruct the investigation and possessing the firearm in connection with drug dealing.

The court affirmed dismissal of the damages claims because the complaint did not state plausible procedural or substantive due process claims or an unreasonable-seizure claim. Although the plaintiffs had a state-law lien and standing to seek damages, Missouri provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the…

The court affirmed the insurer’s $100 judgment for breach of the delivery contract. It held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempted the insurer’s negligence, unjust-enrichment, and civil-theft claims, but that the evidence did not support conversion; the shipping contract’s liability limit therefore applied.

The court held that BNSF preserved its Seventh Amendment challenge and that Gourneau’s retaliation claim seeks legal relief for a private-party dispute, so it cannot be resolved through the Department’s administrative process without a jury trial.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Walker’s within-Guidelines sentence after concluding that the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was proper, the sentence was substantively reasonable, and attorney-requested delays did not violate the Speedy Trial Act.

The supplied text is a clerk’s notice stating that the court issued an opinion and entered judgment, but it does not include the opinion or its disposition. Accordingly, the legal issues decided and the court’s reasoning cannot be determined from this text.

The supplied text is a clerk’s notice stating that the court issued an opinion and entered judgment, but it does not include the opinion itself. The court’s decision, reasoning, and disposition therefore cannot be determined from this text.

The supplied text is a clerk’s notice stating that an opinion issued and judgment was entered, but it does not include the opinion or disclose what the court decided. The legal issue, reasoning, and disposition therefore cannot be determined from this text.