by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing sentencing enhancements under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) for three or more firearms, USSG 3B1.4 for use of a child in the commission of the offense; and USSG 2K2.1(B)(6)(b) for committing the firearm offense in connection with another felony; defendant waived his argument that the district court abused its discretion in granting the government's request to continue; even if subject to plain error review, the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less commit plain error, in granting the government's motion for a short continuance to secure the attendance of an important witness; the district court did not err by calculating defendant's base offense level as his prior conviction for assault while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code Sections 708.1 and 708.2(3) was a crime of violence resulting in a base offense level of 22 under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(a)(3); and even if there was error, the error was harmless. View "United States v. McGee" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that petitioner's conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree in violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.344, subdiv.1(b) was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that a person who has been convicted under the statute has necessarily committed sexual abuse of a minor under the Act and was both removable and ineligible for asylum. View "Garcia-Urbano v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Posted in: Immigration Law

by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the tax court's order finding that taxpayer owed additional income taxes and penalties. The court held that the person that issued the notice of deficiency was in a supervisory position and thus the notice satisfied the statutory requirement that the deficiency be determined and sent by someone duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. View "Muncy v. CIR" on Justia Law

Posted in: Tax Law

by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he violated his terms of supervision. The court held that the district court properly considered the relevant factors and did not procedurally err in failing to explain its sentence. In this case, the district court discussed defendant's lengthy criminal history and his noncompliance to court orders. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant and his 24 month sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Holt" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and voluntary departure. The court held that the record contained sufficient facts to support the BIA's conclusion that petitioner's prior conviction under North Dakota law for unlawful entry into a vehicle was an aggravated felony attempted theft as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(U) and (G). View "Ahmed v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Eighth Circuit held that defendant's challenge to his revocation sentence was moot because he had served the sentence and been release from custody. The court vacated the mandatory condition of supervised release requiring defendant to participate in an approved program for domestic violence, holding that there was lack of evidence supporting the condition and a complete lack of explanation for its imposition. Therefore, the district court erred and the error affected defendant's substantial rights. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that evidence regarding the firearm's operability was properly excluded because it would have yielded substantial juror confusion without having significant probative value regarding the issue of weapon design; the firearm, a .380 Cobra, qualified as a firearm for purposes of the statute despite its missing pieces and broken parts; and proof that the firearm was operable was not required because the language of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) requires only that the weapon was designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The court held however that the district court erred by sentencing defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act in light of the court's en banc decision in United States v. Naylor, 887 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc). Therefore, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hardin" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Benton, Tate, and Kesari's conviction of causing false records, causing false campaign expenditure reports, engaging in a false statements scheme; and conspiring to commit these offenses. Benton served as campaign chairman in Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, Tate served as campaign manager, and Kesari served as deputy campaign manager. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants; the jury was entitled to infer from the facts that Benton and Tate had knowingly and willfully caused Commission reports to be filed which falsely reported the payments to a senator for his endorsement as payments to ICT for audio/visual services; the court rejected defendants' arguments that the reporting requirements were so vague or confusing that the court should either apply the rule of lenity or determine that criminal enforcement was not appropriate in this case; Kesari's counts were not multiplicitious; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tate's motion to sever his trial from his codefendants; and the court rejected challenges to the jury instructions, evidentiary challenges, and a Jencks Act claim. View "United States v. Benton" on Justia Law

by
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry as a removed alien after an aggravated felony conviction. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by increasing defendant's base offense level by eight under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), based on his previous burglary convictions under California law. The court upheld the aggravated felony enhancement under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), and held that defendant could not maintain his vagueness challenge under the reasoning in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). The court also held that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Sanchez-Rojas" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion in Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 853 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 2017). The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for UPS in an action alleging that UPS violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) when it placed him on medical leave from his long time position as a package car driver and then failed to reasonably accommodate his physical disability. The court held that UPS did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or ICRA by refusing plaintiff's request for an eight-hour work day because that accommodation would have made him unqualified to perform the essential job functions of a package car driver. The court also held that no reasonable jury could find that UPS's decision to instead pursue reassignment to full-time jobs which plaintiff had suggested, and for which he was immediately qualified, was disability discrimination; UPS did not violate the ADA when it refused to accommodate an expert's restrictions of working certain hours per day; and a reasonable jury could not find that UPS acted in bad faith. View "Faidley v. United Parcel Service" on Justia Law