| Turner v. XTO Energy, Inc. |
| Docket: 19-2867 Opinion Date: February 25, 2021 Judge: Roger Leland Wollman Areas of Law: Contracts |
| The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of XTO on plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and conversion. The court concluded that plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment on his breach of contract or conversion claims because he has not set forth sufficient evidence to allow a factfinder to find that the Turner No. 1 Well has extracted gas from the Viola Formation after 1982. In light of the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact whether the Viola Formation produced after 1982, the court need not reach the question whether plaintiff's claims are time barred under Arkansas law. |
| |
| United States v. Flax |
| Docket: 19-3547 Opinion Date: February 25, 2021 Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's drug and firearm conspiracy convictions and his conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court also concluded that, although the district court erred by allowing an officer to impermissibly opine on an ultimate issue when she testified that the 1-9 Block Dipset Gang is a "drug trafficking organization," there was no plain error because defendant could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. |
| |
| United States v. Shoulders |
| Docket: 19-2832 Opinion Date: February 25, 2021 Judge: Steven M. Colloton Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 300 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder within Indian country. The court need not address whether the district court erred by departing under USSG 5K2.1 and 5K2.6, because the district court said that it would impose the same sentence by varying upward under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Furthermore, defendant did not object to the mistaken statements of fact at issue, and he cannot show a reasonable probability that they affected the outcome of the proceeding. The court also concluded that there is no reasonable probability that the district court would have arrived at a different sentence if the defense had clarified the identities of the minivan occupants and the family relationships during the hearing. The district court also discussed the section 3553(a) factors at some length and its explanation was adequate. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. |
| |
| United States v. Wickman |
| Docket: 20-1186 Opinion Date: February 25, 2021 Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 192 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court varied downward after engaging in a measured and thoughtful discussion of the Guidelines and their applicability to defendant's offense and personal circumstances. The court also concluded that, while a district court may choose to deviate from the Guidelines because of a policy disagreement, it is not required to do so. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. |
| |
| United States v. Zephier |
| Docket: 19-2262 Opinion Date: February 25, 2021 Judge: Stras Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court concluded that, even if defendant invokes the right to counsel, the law enforcement agent could still continue to make limited and focused inquires attendant to a legitimate police procedure if they are not likely to be perceived as calling for an incriminating response. In this case, the agent's statement fell into this category and he simply presented the search warrant to defendant, telling him what it allowed him to do. The court explained that it was, in other words, a "statement of fact" about a legitimate police procedure. However, the court concluded that the district court's decision -- admitting expert testimony about the typical behaviors of sexual assault victims and refusing to admit testimony about whether the victim had been sexually assaulted before -- improperly prevented defendant from presenting his complete defense and showing that an earlier sexual assault was the source of the victim's trauma. The court remanded for a new trial. |
| |
