Wayne Nichols v. Jose Chacon, etc.

Sep 27, 2001

00-3331

Versions:19 F. App'x 471

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Scott Borchers challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3), the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA). Borchers pleaded guilty to one count of failure to pay child support in violation of § 228(a)(3), and was sentenced to ten months imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and restitution.

We conclude that Borchers’s challenge is foreclosed by this court’s prior decision upholding the constitutionality of § 228(a)(3). See United States v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397, 1400 (8th Cir.) (enactment of CSRA was constitutional exercise of Congress’s commerce power, because payment of child support on behalf of out-of-state child is substantially related to interstate commerce), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 934, 118 S.Ct. 341, 139 L.Ed.2d 264 (1997); United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.) (one Eighth Circuit panel may not overrule another panel’s decision), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 824, 118 S.Ct. 84, 139 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.¹

PER CURIAM.

After the district court¹ granted Wayne Nichols summary judgment as to liability in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Arkansas State Police Trooper Jose Chacon, the jury awarded Nichols $2000 in compensatory damages and $2000 in punitive damages. The court then granted Chacon’s motion for judgment as a matter of law striking the punitive damages. Nichols appeals.

Having reviewed de novo the district court’s grant of Chacon’s motion, see Fletcher v. Price Chopper Foods of Trumann, Inc., 220 F.3d 871, 875 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review), we agree that Nichols did not adduce any evidence that Chacon’s conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or ... involve[d] reckless or callous indifference to [Nichols’s] federally protected rights,” see Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) (standard for punitive damages in § 1983 actions).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

PER CURIAM.

Craig Burns pleaded guilty to manufacturing a firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(f); conspiring against civil rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; and transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The district court¹ sentenced him to 168 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, Burns’s counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Notes

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. The HONORABLE MARK W. BENNETT, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.