8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: June 25, 2025

Listen to this article

Administrative

Hemp Industry

Criminalization; Constitutionality

Defendants, the Governor and Attorney General of Arkansas, appealed the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss and the grant of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff sued to challenge the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that made much of the state’s previously legal hemp industry illegal. Plaintiff argued that the law violated the Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause, Takings Clause, and Commerce Clause. The district court found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim because a federal farm bill likely preempted the Arkansas law.

Where the Arkansas law likely would not run afoul of prohibiting interstate commerce through Arkansas and the federal farm bill merely allowed states to legalize hemp production, plaintiff’s Supremacy Clause was likely to fail. Furthermore, defendants were too attenuated from the enforcement of the Arkansas law to support waiving sovereign immunity.

Judgment is vacated and reversed.

Bio Gen LLC v. Sanders (MLW No. 83388/Case No. 23-3237 – 16 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J.

State Bullion Regulation

Dormant Commerce Clause; Definition of State Transaction

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota statute regulating bullion transactions. Plaintiffs, a collection of precious metal traders, argued that the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause based on its extraterritorial reach due to the statute’s definition of a “Minnesota transaction.” On a prior appeal, the court held that the statute did violate the Commerce Clause. On remand, the district court concluded that the statutory provisions concerning “Minnesota transaction” were severable and cured extraterritoriality concerns. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the statute as reconstituted still applied extraterritorially and that the district court erred by applying Minnesota severability law.

Where severance meant that a Minnesota transaction required at least one party located in the state, the district court correctly concluded that the law did not run afoul of the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, severance did not render the statute incapable of fulfilling legislative intent.

Judgment is affirmed.

Styczinski v. Arnold (MLW No. 83392/Case No. 24-1828 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Brasel, J.

Civil Practice

Civil Action

Dismissal; Proper Basis

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his civil action.

Where the record supported the district court’s reasons for dismissing the case, the court was constrained to affirm.

Judgment is affirmed.

Carney v. Welch (MLW No. 83394/Case No. 24-3628 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Strand, J.

Civil Rights

Unlawful Arrest

Qualified Immunity; Probable Cause

Defendant appealed the denial of her motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Donterious Stephens walked within a few feet of defendant and asked her questions while she and other police officers arrested Donterious’ mother. After his father was also taken into custody, Donterious again spoke to defendant, who ordered officers to arrest Donterious as well. Plaintiffs sued defendant, claiming unlawful arrest. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that she had probable cause to arrest Donterious for obstructing government operations during his mother’s arrest.

Where the evidence supported finding that Donterious questioned defendant from a few feet away and then stood back when defendant warned him not to walk towards her, the district court correctly denied defendant qualified immunity as she potentially lacked probable cause to arrest Donterious.

Judgment is affirmed.

Willis v. Mills (MLW No. 83363/Case No. 24-1157 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J.

Contracts

Asset Purchase Agreement

IP Assignment; Trade Secret Violation

Defendants appealed the jury’s adverse verdict and several district court orders. Defendants manufactured various types of folders under several trade names. Defendants later entered an asset purchase agreement with plaintiff under which defendants agreed to sell their folder business, including all IP used in the business, and not to disclose any trade secrets. Defendants later launched a new folder business, after they had retained historical financial data and customer lists from their prior business. Plaintiff sued defendants for trade secret violations and other contract claims.

Where defendants had contractually agreed not to disclose the folder business’s confidential information without authorization, there was an adequate basis for plaintiff’s contract claim, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and tortious interference with business relationships given defendants’ retention of customer lists.

Judgment is affirmed.

Crabar/GBF, Inc. v. Wright (MLW No. 83389/Case No. 23-3335 – 19 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Gerrard, J.

Criminal Law

§2241 Petition

Equal Protection Violation; Improper Aggregation of Sentences

Defendant appealed the denial of his §2241 motion alleging violation of his equal protection rights because other inmates were allowed to possess cell phones in prison and that the Bureau of Prisons improperly aggregated his sentences into a single sentence, rendering him ineligible for First Step Act credits.

Where defendant’s claims were not raised in the counseled brief on appeal, they were forfeited, and his credit restoration claim was waived for failing to be presented to the lower court.

Judgment is affirmed.

Nesdahl v. Garrett (MLW No. 83369/Case No. 24-2318 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Moody, J.

Child Pornography

Admission of Video Excerpt; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed his conviction for child pornography offenses, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to preclude the government from playing an excerpt of a child pornography video and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Where there was no abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s motion, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Hamer (MLW No. 83366/Case No. 24-1964 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Menendez, J.

Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs

Distribution Resulting in Death; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendants appealed their conviction for drug distribution conspiracy and distribution of drugs resulting in death, challenging various evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence, and alleging a violation of their Confrontation Clause rights.

Where statements by a non-testifying individual did not violate the hearsay rule or the Confrontation Clause as they were statements of a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy or were admitted solely to establish context, there was sufficient evidence to support defendants’ convictions.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Shipp (MLW No. 83391/Case No. 24-1591 & 24-1871 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Locher, J.

Drug Distribution Conspiracy

Motion to Suppress Evidence; Motion to Sever Charges

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and sever his charges. Defendant was charged with drug distribution conspiracy and firearms offenses related to a shooting. Defendant moved to sever his firearms counts from the drug counts and to suppress evidence found during a search of his residences and to suppress electronic surveillance evidence. The district court denied the motions, and a jury convicted defendant on all counts.

Where the affidavit in support of the warrant application was sufficient to establish probable cause given the police’s surveillance of defendant at the residences, there was no error in denying suppression of the physical evidence, and the government adequately explained why other investigative techniques were unsuccessful, supporting electronic surveillance of defendant. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that all of defendant’s charges were part of an interconnected drug trafficking conspiracy.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Whitfield (MLW No. 83360/Case No. 24-1368 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Schelp, J.

Drug Distribution Conspiracy

Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering; Safety Valve Relief

Defendant appealed the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed for his conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs and commit money laundering, challenging the district court’s denial of safety valve relief.

Where defendant failed to object to disqualifying information in his PSR, there was no error in denying safety valve relief, nor any abuse of discretion in not varying downward further from the bottom of the Guidelines range.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Holliday (MLW No. 83368/Case No. 24-1957 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Habeas Petition

Murder; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner sought habeas relief from his Arkansas murder conviction and death sentence, arguing that he was intellectually disabled at the time of the murders, that trial counsel served under a conflict of interest and was ineffective for failing to present evidence that petitioner’s brother committed the murder, and that the penalty phase jury instructions violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433.

Where defendant procedurally defaulted on all his claims except for his alleged intellectual disability, the court concluded that defendant was not entitled to habeas relief as the Arkansas courts credited evidence indicating that defendant had an IQ above the threshold for intellectual disability and demonstrating that defendant had adequate adaptive capacity. The court declined to consider the procedurally defaulted claims where defendant failed to make a showing of actual innocence.

Judgment is affirmed.

Rankin v. Payne (MLW No. 83362/Case No. 23-3526 – 21 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Moody, J.

Motion for Sentence Reduction

Compassionate Release; Need for Specialized Care

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for compassionate release based on his age, declining health, and need for specialized care. The district court concluded that defendant was not eligible to request relief on their own behalf.

Where defendants who committed offenses before November 1987 were not eligible to move for compassionate release, the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Rogge (MLW No. 83365/Case No. 24-1678 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Hickey, J.

Possession of Firearm by Prohibited Person

Drug Trafficking Enhancement; Obstruction of Justice Enhancement

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, challenging the district court’s application of drug trafficking and obstruction of justice sentencing enhancements

Where defendant’s claim that he did not own the drugs found in his cooler was equally plausible to the district court’s finding possession and defendant was also found with drug distribution paraphernalia, there was no error in imposing the sentence enhancement, nor for attempting to convince an acquittance to claim ownership of a gun found in defendant’s bag.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Porter (MLW No. 83367/Case No. 24-1195 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kobes, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Possession of Firearm by Unlawful Drug User

Constitutionality of Criminal Statute; Excessive Sentence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, based on defendant’s unlawful drug use and his prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the statute and arguing that his sentence was excessive.

Where the court had previously ruled that prohibiting drug users from firearm possession was constitutionally permissible, there was a valid basis for defendant’s charge, and there was no abuse of discretion in varying downward further from the bottom of the Guidelines range.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Springer (MLW No. 83390/Case No. 24-1478 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Prohibited Person in Possession of Firearm

Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the charged statute and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence due to an invalid Miranda waiver and a lack of reasonable suspicion.

Where defendant’s incriminating statements were made during the initial stages of a routine investigation into a shoplifting complaint, the failure to immediately administer Miranda rights did not render the subsequent waiver invalid. Furthermore, officers had a reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant had shoplifted based on a report from store loss prevention personnel, and thus to detain defendant which led to the ultimately discovery of his firearm.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Robinson (MLW No. 83370/Case No. 24-2416 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J., and Piersol, J.

Robbery

Offense Level Increase; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to robbery offenses, challenging the imposition of a three-level increase for brandishing or possessing a dangerous weapon and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court expressly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any identified error, there was no prejudice to defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Harris (MLW No. 83393/Case No. 24-3100 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Constitutional Right to Jury Trial

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the revocation judgment violated his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Where revocation proceedings could reach a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, there was no error in the district court’s judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Meier (MLW No. 83361/Case No. 24-2886 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.