Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Verlynin Buckley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court determined that he was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Buckley appealed, arguing that the court erred in deeming him an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which mandates a minimum of fifteen years in prison for defendants with three or more prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas held that Buckley’s prior Arkansas convictions for possessing cocaine with the intent to deliver and for delivering cocaine were serious drug offenses under the ACCA. Buckley conceded that his prior convictions involved prohibited activity subjecting him to ten or more years in prison but contended that his prior convictions did not involve a controlled substance as defined by federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and rejected Buckley’s argument. The court held that the Arkansas statutes under which Buckley was convicted did not incorporate the state’s drug schedules but instead referred to cocaine in its ordinary sense. The court found no reason to believe that Arkansas intended to define cocaine more broadly than federal law. Consequently, Buckley’s prior cocaine convictions were deemed serious drug offenses under the ACCA. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding Buckley’s sentence as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Buckley" on Justia Law

Justin Johnson, a pretrial detainee at Jefferson County Jail, was attacked by two other inmates while in protective custody. Johnson sued correctional officers Jacob Schurman and Christopher Taylor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect him and for negligence under Missouri law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding that qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claims and that official immunity and the public duty doctrine barred the negligence claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri determined that Johnson could not show a constitutional violation necessary to overcome qualified immunity. The court found no evidence that the officers were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm, as the attackers were not known to be violent, and Johnson had no prior relationship with them. The court also dismissed the negligence claims, ruling that the officers were protected by official immunity because their actions were discretionary, not ministerial. Additionally, the court found that the public duty doctrine applied, as the officers owed no particular duty to Johnson beyond that owed to the general prison population.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as Johnson failed to show that they were deliberately indifferent to a known risk. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claims, concluding that the officers' actions involved discretionary decisions protected by official immunity. The court did not address the public duty doctrine, as the official immunity finding was sufficient to resolve the negligence claims. View "Johnson v. Schurman" on Justia Law

The case concerns Erik J. Vivier, who was accused of engaging in sexual acts with J.M., a 15-year-old girl, while she was allegedly incapacitated due to alcohol consumption. J.M. testified that she felt dizzy, nauseous, and not in control of her body after drinking, and described being invited into Vivier’s home, given more alcohol, and then sexually assaulted while in a spare bedroom. Vivier initially denied knowing J.M., then changed his account multiple times, eventually admitting to a sexual act but claiming he was not in the right state of mind. Other witnesses present at the home offered limited observations, and the government’s case relied heavily on J.M.’s testimony and Vivier’s inconsistent statements.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota presided over the trial, where a jury convicted Vivier of sexual abuse of an incapacitated victim and sexual abuse of a minor. Vivier moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of sexual abuse of an incapacitated victim, arguing insufficient evidence of J.M.’s incapacity and his knowledge thereof. The district court denied this motion. During trial, Vivier also objected to the testimony of an FBI agent who opined on Vivier’s truthfulness, arguing it was undisclosed expert testimony. The district court denied the motion to strike but issued a curative instruction, partially adopting Vivier’s proposed language.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that J.M. was incapacitated and that Vivier knew of her incapacity. The court also found that, although the district court erred in its curative instruction regarding the agent’s opinion testimony, this did not affect Vivier’s substantial rights. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Vivier" on Justia Law

Jimmy Hudson pled guilty to a drug distribution charge after selling fentanyl to a confidential informant. He was indicted and, as part of a plea agreement, pled guilty to one count of distributing fentanyl. The plea agreement noted that Hudson might be labeled a career offender, which would increase his sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) confirmed Hudson's status as a career offender due to his prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses, resulting in a sentencing range of 151 to 188 months. The Government recommended a 151-month sentence, which the district court adopted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri sentenced Hudson to 151 months’ imprisonment, considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Hudson's status as a career offender. The court noted Hudson's criminal history and the need for a sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary. Hudson also received a 24-month sentence for violating supervised release terms, but he did not appeal that sentence.Hudson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. He contended that his career offender status unfairly increased his sentencing range because his prior convictions were non-violent drug offenses. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that the district court had considered Hudson's individual characteristics and the dangerousness of fentanyl. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the 151-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law

River Smith pled guilty to unlawful possession of a machine gun and was sentenced to 80 months of imprisonment. The FBI began investigating Smith after receiving a tip about his suspicious activities at a shooting range. Smith expressed violent and prejudicial views, showed interest in firearms, and discussed plans to obtain illegal weapons. He was arrested after purchasing auto sears and inert grenades from an undercover source. Smith's residence contained a large cache of firearms and ammunition, and his devices revealed searches and communications related to mass shootings and violence.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota sentenced Smith to 80 months of imprisonment, denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and applying enhancements for the number of firearms and destructive devices involved. The court also imposed special conditions on Smith's supervised release, including restrictions on internet and social media use, and possession of extremist materials. Smith appealed, challenging the denial of the reduction, the enhancements, the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, and the special conditions of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, finding no clear error. It upheld the enhancements related to the grenades, concluding that Smith intended to purchase live grenades. The court also found the 80-month sentence substantively reasonable, given Smith's conduct and potential threat to society. However, the court vacated three special conditions of supervised release, finding them overly restrictive and not reasonably necessary to achieve sentencing goals. The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Markhel D’John Harris-Franklin was charged with being an armed career criminal in possession of ammunition, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). He moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging a violation of the Speedy Trial Act and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The district court denied his motions, and he was found guilty by a jury.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota initially handled the case. Harris-Franklin made multiple motions to extend the time for filing pretrial motions, which the court granted, finding that the ends of justice served by the continuances outweighed the best interests of the public and Harris-Franklin in a speedy trial. After a competency evaluation and the appointment of new counsel, Harris-Franklin moved to dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act and challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The magistrate judge recommended denying the motions, and the district court adopted this recommendation. Harris-Franklin did not renew his motion to dismiss before trial, and he was convicted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Harris-Franklin’s rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated, as the district court properly excluded certain periods of delay from the 70-day calculation. The court also found that circuit precedent foreclosed Harris-Franklin’s Second Amendment argument, affirming the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss. The court concluded that the ends-of-justice continuances granted by the district court were reasonable and necessary to allow new counsel time to prepare for trial. View "United States v. Harris-Franklin" on Justia Law

Rodney Dale Smith was found by law enforcement slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle, which was blocking the roadway. Upon investigation, officers discovered that Smith had a suspended driver’s license and subsequently arrested him. During an inventory search of his vehicle, officers found a glass smoking pipe and a functional pipe bomb. Smith was charged with possession of an unregistered firearm and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced Smith to 37 months’ imprisonment. The court calculated his offense level and criminal history category, resulting in a Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months. The government recommended 36 months, while the defense requested 18 months, emphasizing Smith’s drug addiction and need for treatment. The district court imposed a 37-month sentence, stating that the length was chosen to allow Smith to complete the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) while in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Smith argued that the district court erred by basing the length of his sentence on his need for rehabilitation, which is prohibited by Tapia v. United States. The Eighth Circuit agreed, finding that the district court plainly erred by considering Smith’s need for rehabilitation when determining the sentence length. The court noted that the district court’s focus on Smith’s addiction and need for treatment, and its explicit statement that the sentence length was chosen to allow Smith to complete RDAP, violated Tapia.The Eighth Circuit vacated Smith’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with Tapia, which prohibits imposing or lengthening a prison sentence to promote rehabilitation. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Raymond Antonio Lewis was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The incident occurred on December 20, 2018, when Officer John Buford responded to a report of shots fired and encountered Lewis, who was found with firearms and methamphetamine. Lewis was identified as a felon and arrested.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas handled the case. Lewis was indicted in May 2021, with a superseding indictment in November 2022. His trial was delayed multiple times due to continuance requests by his counsel and other procedural matters. Lewis filed motions to suppress Officer Buford’s testimony and to sever the trial, both of which were denied by the district court. The jury found Lewis guilty on two counts but acquitted him on a third count of possessing firearms in furtherance of drug distribution. He was sentenced to 156 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Lewis argued that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motions, that the preindictment delay violated his Fifth Amendment rights, that the delay between indictment and trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the officer’s testimony despite the policy violation, that the denial of the motion to sever was not an abuse of discretion, that the preindictment delay did not violate due process, and that the delay in trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Eugene Hollow Horn Bear was convicted by a jury of two counts of abusive sexual contact and pled guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. Hollow Horn Bear appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his convictions, a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota initially handled the case. Hollow Horn Bear was indicted on multiple counts, including sexual abuse and failure to register as a sex offender. The district court severed the SORNA counts, and Hollow Horn Bear was tried on the sexual abuse counts. He was acquitted of sexual abuse of a person incapable of consent but convicted of two counts of abusive sexual contact. He later pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, and the court dismissed the remaining count. At sentencing, the court considered his criminal history and mitigating factors but imposed a total term of 108 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as the jury was entitled to believe the testimony of the witnesses despite their intoxication. The court also found no Double Jeopardy violation, as each act of sexual contact constituted a separate offense under the relevant statutes. Finally, the court determined that the sentence was substantively reasonable, given the serious nature of the offense and the district court’s consideration of the mitigating factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. View "United States v. Hollow Horn Bear" on Justia Law

Two children, a nine-year-old girl and her eight-year-old brother, reported sexual abuse by their stepfather, who lived with them and their mother. After the children disclosed the abuse to a nurse practitioner, law enforcement obtained consent to search the family’s residence, seizing a red iPhone and the children’s bedding. Investigators discovered that the stepfather had shared child pornography via the Mega file-sharing service. Upon questioning, he admitted ownership of the phone, provided its password, and consented to its search. Investigators found videos on the phone and Mega account depicting the children in sexually explicit situations, with the stepfather’s voice directing them. DNA evidence linked him to semen found on the children’s bedding.A grand jury indicted the stepfather on two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of committing those offenses while on the sex offender registry, and one count of possession of child pornography. After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the court found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to 720 months in prison and a life term of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for two counts, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, even though the district court did not explicitly address each of the Dost factors for lascivious exhibition. The court also found no abuse of discretion or plain error in the admission of testimony from a prior victim, the nurse practitioner, or the forensic scientist, nor in the admission of a partially completed Miranda waiver form. The sentence was deemed reasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. En Maati" on Justia Law