James B. Loken

Chanh Lovan, a Laotian citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident, was convicted in 1991 of sexually abusing a child and later traveled abroad and returned in 2002; removal proceedings began when he applied for naturalization, based on a 1996 law classifying the conviction as an aggravated felony. Lovan sought discretionary relief from deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which the Board of Immigration Appeals denied on remand after applying a statutory-counterpart analysis to find him ineligible. The Eighth Circuit granted Lovan’s petition for review and ordered the Attorney General to exercise § 212(c) discretion. The court reasoned that, under the retroactivity analysis in INS v. St. Cyr, Lovan would have qualified for nunc pro tunc § 212(c) relief at the time of the statute’s 1996 repeal because precedents such as In re G-A- allowed such waivers for returning permanent residents whose convictions also rendered them excludable, and the BIA improperly ignored that pre-repeal legal landscape.

immigrationcriminal law

Clifton D. Taylor was convicted of bank robbery after he waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial in the Western District of Missouri. On appeal, he argued that the district court abused its discretion by repeatedly denying his requests for substitute appointed counsel, which he claimed rendered his waiver of counsel involuntary under the Sixth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that Taylor’s complaints about counsel were based on counsel’s refusal to file baseless pro se motions alleging government misconduct and that there was no breakdown in communication, only Taylor’s unwillingness to cooperate with competent counsel. The court further reasoned that because Taylor had no good cause for new counsel, his persistent demands amounted to a knowing and voluntary waiver, and the district court had properly warned him of the risks of self-representation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved George Stokes's claim of malicious prosecution under Arkansas law against Southern States Cooperative (SSC) after SSC sued him to enforce a loan guaranty on crop inputs sold to his tenant farmer. The district court granted summary judgment to SSC, concluding Stokes failed to show SSC lacked probable cause or acted with malice. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a jury could reasonably find SSC misapplied the tenant's payments to an unguaranteed note held by a related entity, failed to disclose this or provide an accounting, and pursued the suit for an improper purpose. The court determined these facts created genuine issues on the elements of probable cause and malice when viewed in the light most favorable to Stokes.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Wanda Slater, as assignee of LCI Equipment's rights under a commercial general liability policy, sued Republic-Vanguard Insurance in Arkansas state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy required the insurer to defend and indemnify LCI against her wrongful death claims arising from a tractor rollover accident allegedly caused by the lack of a rollover protection system. Republic removed the case to federal court, and the district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, concluding that coverage was barred by the policy's Products/Completed-Operations exclusion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that LCI was a nominal plaintiff whose presence did not destroy diversity jurisdiction and that the claims, including those framed as negligence, fell within the exclusion under applicable Texas law interpreting products liability actions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved defendant Randy Lee Vanhorn's appeal of a district court order revoking his supervised release. Vanhorn had been convicted years earlier of mail fraud and money laundering; after a prior revocation for committing a state crime, the court imposed a new supervised release term that included six months in a halfway house. When his probation officer attempted to arrange placement, Vanhorn repeatedly stated he would not go to any halfway house and sent a threatening email to one facility, leading the government to seek revocation before any placement was finalized. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding Vanhorn violated the condition because his statements and conduct demonstrated an absolute refusal to comply, regardless of whether a specific placement or report date had been offered.

criminal law

The case involved Doyle C. Alcorn, who was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) after officers discovered marijuana plants and a shotgun at his home during multiple visits. A jury found Alcorn guilty on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to two concurrent twenty-month terms. Alcorn appealed, arguing that the district court erred by providing only a general unanimity instruction to the jury, by denying his requested instruction on entrapment by estoppel, and by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions, concluding that the general unanimity instruction was adequate, that no evidence supported an entrapment by estoppel defense because no government official had affirmatively assured Alcorn his conduct was legal, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Martin Stern petitioned under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), implementing the Hague Convention, for the return of his son DJ to Israel after the child's mother retained him in Iowa following her doctoral studies. The district court denied the petition, determining that the United States was DJ's habitual residence at the time of the alleged wrongful retention. The Eighth Circuit affirmed after a bench trial, finding that DJ had acclimated to Iowa—where he had lived since age two with considerable local connections—and that the parents' intentions at the time of the move supported establishing Iowa as the habitual residence, even if they planned an eventual return to Israel. The court stressed that habitual residence determinations focus on the child's perspective and past experiences rather than future parental intentions, and any stipulated timing discrepancies were immaterial.

family law

Robert Joos, a convicted felon, was charged with illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives after authorities searched his property and found numerous guns, over 19,000 rounds of ammunition, and blasting caps. A jury convicted him on all counts under federal statutes prohibiting felons from possessing such items, and the district court sentenced him to 78 months in prison. On appeal, Joos challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the explosive possession charge and other procedural matters, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, ruling that the evidence supported a finding of constructive possession and that the trial proceedings were proper.

criminal lawguns

In United States v. Grays, the defendant, a convicted felon, pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after arrests in 2008 and 2009 during which he was found with handguns, small amounts of drugs, and over $5,000 in cash; the government dismissed a second firearm count. The district court applied a sentencing guidelines cross reference to drug trafficking under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) and converted the cash into a crack cocaine equivalent based on testimony linking it to drug sales, resulting in a 108-month prison sentence. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding the firearm possession was connected to drug trafficking rather than mere possession and that the cash conversion accurately reflected the scale of the underlying offense under the guidelines. The court noted that the enhancement applies even if the firearm in question differs from the one tied to the conviction count and that factual findings on drug quantity are reviewed for clear error.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Jon Katzenmeier, who suffered injuries when a muzzleloader rifle manufactured by Dikar and distributed by Blackpowder Products exploded on its first use after he loaded it with the maximum recommended propellant. He brought product liability claims against the manufacturers, and his wife asserted a loss of consortium claim; the district court dismissed the consortium claim, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. Katzenmeier appealed several evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of evidence of similar incidents, the admission of evidence about marks on the barrel from the manufacturing process, and the allowance of expert testimony regarding possible improper propellant use. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that it did not abuse its discretion or commit error in its evidentiary decisions.

torts & liability

In Sierra Club v. Kimbell, environmental groups challenged the U.S. Forest Service's 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Superior National Forest, arguing that the agency's environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) failed to adequately assess the plan's effects on the adjacent Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service, finding the analysis sufficient, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the agency took the required 'hard look' at impacts on the wilderness area by declaring neutrality toward the BWCAW, evaluating specific effects such as edge impacts from logging and roads, and incorporating the BWCAW into broader regional analyses covering the Northern Superior Uplands for factors like watershed health and wildlife. This approach satisfied NEPA's procedural requirements without needing further differentiation of impacts inside versus outside the protected area.

environmentfederal power

In United States v. Burrell, the defendant pled guilty to a drug conspiracy and received an initial 168-month sentence under the then-applicable sentencing guidelines. After the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the guidelines range for crack cocaine offenses to 121-151 months, Burrell moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction to the bottom of the new range. The district court granted the motion in a one-sentence order that reduced the sentence to 151 months without further explanation or discussion of the parties' arguments. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for selecting a sentence at the top of the amended range, which prevented meaningful appellate review of its exercise of discretion under the statute.

criminal law

In United States v. Dinwiddie, Dennis Dinwiddie and Michael Meador were convicted of multiple counts arising from a marijuana distribution conspiracy that culminated in the murder of a co-conspirator. Dinwiddie was convicted on four counts and Meador on three counts, and both received life sentences. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit, they challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain jury instructions, and aspects of their sentences under federal firearms statutes and the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the evidence sufficient, the instructions proper, and any potential sentencing errors either waived, harmless, or foreclosed by precedent.

criminal lawguns

This case involved a dispute over whether Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company (ERSIC) had a duty under its policy to defend Capella University against a federal lawsuit filed by former student Jeffrey La Marca, who alleged discrimination and retaliation related to accommodations for his learning disability and his complaints to the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The district court ruled that ERSIC owed a duty to defend and awarded damages for defense costs, which the Eighth Circuit affirmed based on the policy's coverage provisions for claims arising from the insured's educational activities. The appeals court also affirmed the damages amount but reversed the denial of interest, holding that Minnesota Statute § 549.09 mandates prejudgment interest on the awarded defense costs and that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 requires postjudgment interest. The court remanded the case for entry of judgment including both forms of interest, finding no waiver by Capella of these statutory rights.

business & regulatory

Cindy Rote sued Titan Tire Corporation under ERISA after the company, acting as plan administrator, denied her long-term disability benefits claim. Titan first rejected the claim without explanation and later denied it on remand by interpreting her doctors' work restrictions as only "indefinite" rather than "permanent," even after the doctors clarified they were permanent. The district court held that Titan abused its discretion, vacated the denial, ordered payment of benefits, and awarded attorney's fees that included work performed during the court-ordered remand. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Titan's denial lacked support in the record and that fees incurred after a judicial remand were recoverable under ERISA. The court reasoned that the plan's definition of disability was satisfied once the restrictions were confirmed as permanent and that the fee award aligned with precedents allowing recovery for post-remand administrative proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Rodger Lee Moran, who was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of actual methamphetamine and sentenced to life imprisonment based on evidence from undercover purchases and recorded phone calls with Moran and his girlfriend. Moran appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for conviction, that law enforcement engaged in sentencing manipulation by escalating drug quantities, and that the mandatory life sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict, the drug quantity increases were part of a legitimate investigation to probe the conspiracy rather than solely to enhance the sentence, and precedent upheld such mandatory sentences for repeat drug offenders.

criminal law

In this case, brothers Vincent and Karl Bertling were convicted by a jury of conspiring to obstruct justice by intimidating witnesses in a related federal firearms case. After an earlier appeal reinstated the convictions following the district court's grant of a new trial, the district court imposed below-guidelines sentences, varying downward in part because it found the brothers had no intent to carry out the conspiracy. The Government appealed the sentences. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court's findings on intent improperly contradicted the jury's verdict and that a sentencing court lacks discretion to effectively nullify that verdict under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.

criminal law

The case involved Jon and Michelle Sweeney, owners of Micro-Star Technology, a company that manufactured and sold nonaddressable cable television descramblers and authorization control devices intended to enable unauthorized interception of cable signals. A federal grand jury charged the Sweeneys with violating 47 U.S.C. § 553 and 18 U.S.C. § 371 by manufacturing and distributing such equipment and conspiring to do so, as well as currency structuring under 31 U.S.C. § 5324, and charged Mr. Sweeney separately with bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 152. After a jury convicted the Sweeneys on all submitted counts except the bankruptcy fraud charge, the district court sentenced Mr. Sweeney to 70 months’ imprisonment and a $150,000 fine and Mrs. Sweeney to 42 months’ imprisonment and a $125,000 fine. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy convictions and the defendants’ participation, that the district court did not clearly err in its sentencing determinations regarding role in the offense or other guidelines adjustments, and that no other errors warranted reversal.

criminal law

Brian True, employed at a Nebraska correctional facility, was terminated after refusing to allow a random, suspicionless search of his vehicle in the employee parking lot as required by Department of Correctional Services policy. He sued the state and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed in part on the Fourth Amendment claim, holding that an employee can challenge an unreasonable search policy even without an actual search occurring, affirmed the equal protection ruling under the Fourteenth Amendment because the policy was rationally related to legitimate state interests in security and contraband prevention, and remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightslabor & employmentcriminal law

Vance Gillette, a North Dakota-licensed attorney and member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, sued the state's Disciplinary Board counsel in federal court to enjoin ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him. The proceedings arose from his alleged ethical violations while representing tribal clients in tribal court litigation, including disputes over contingent fee agreements. The district court dismissed the action, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Younger abstention required federal courts to refrain from interfering in the pending state bar disciplinary process. The court reasoned that North Dakota has an important interest in regulating the professional conduct of attorneys it licenses, the discipline would affect only Gillette's state practice and not tribal court privileges, and Gillette could raise his jurisdictional and constitutional challenges in the state proceedings without showing of bad faith or exceptional circumstances.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory