Latest 4 Cases: Silk v. United States (Criminal Law), United States v. Loomis (Criminal Law), United States v. Shavers (Criminal Law)

Toxic Religious Liberty in the COVID-19 Era

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that governors and lawmakers should not be granting religious exemptions to stay-at-home orders imposed due to COVID-19. Hamilton points out that there are two prerequisites for legitimate religious exemptions, and the exemptions granted in twelve states have met neither.

Read More

Silk v. United States

Docket: 18-1908

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 117 for the crime of domestic assault by a habitual offender in Indian country. The court held that defendant's prior 2013 conviction under Bismarck Municipal Court for simple assault was for an offense which, if subject to federal jurisdiction, would qualify as an assault against an intimate partner under section 117(a)(1). Consequently, defendant cannot show that he is "actually innocent" of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, and his challenge to the sentence is procedurally defaulted.

United States v. Loomis

Docket: 19-1616

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The court held that, even if the district court erroneously admitted evidence, the errors did not affect defendant's substantial rights as required by the plain-error standard because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

United States v. Shavers

Docket: 18-2810

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court's jury instructions did not constructively amend, or vary from, count one of the superseding indictment; the district court did not err in refusing to give buyer-seller and mere-presence instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the government to elicit testimony showing that defendant and his coconspirator knew one another when they were incarcerated in state prison and that the coconspirator helped defendant while the two were in prison; the district court did not err in applying the murder cross-reference under USSG 2D1.1(d)(1); and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Safeway Transit LLC v. Discount Party Bus, Inc.

Docket: 18-2990

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Trademark

Safeway and its proprietor filed suit against DPB and its owner, alleging federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and deceptive trade practices under Minnesota state law. Safeway claimed that DPB infringed two unregistered description trademarks -- "Rent My Party Bus" and "952 Limo Bus." The district court permanently enjoined defendants from using the trademarks or related domain names, keywords, or hashtags in connection with the advertisement, marketing, or sale of transportation services. However, the district court denied plaintiffs' requests for disgorgement of profits and attorney's fees. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's finding of no actual confusion and thus, no unjust enrichment, was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not erroneously place the burden of proof on Safeway to prove unjust enrichment; and Safeway bore the burden of proving DPB's sales. The court also held that the district court's findings, when taken in their totality, support its conclusion that Safeway is not entitled to a disgorgement of profits based on deterrence. In this case, the district court actually found that DPB held a good faith belief in its right to use the trademarks. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Safeway's request for disgorgement of profits, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Safeway's request for attorney's fees.