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

Zerba agreed to sell a half-pound of marijuana to Beener. The drug deal resulted in the shooting death of Beener’s associate, Plotz. Zerba pled guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(D), 846, and to possessing a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c), 2. The plea agreement states: Defendant ... will be required to pay full restitution to all victims of the offense(s) including relevant conduct victims. The court ordered Zerba to pay $5,611.55 in restitution for Plotz’s funeral costs.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that federal courts are permitted to order restitution only when authorized by statute and that Plotz was not a “victim” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663. The Act allows restitution to be ordered in a plea agreement. The plea agreement phrase “including relevant conduct victims” goes beyond the Act's definition of "victim." “Relevant conduct” is defined in the Sentencing Guidelines and includes the acts of others that occurred during or in preparation for the offense. Clemens, the shooter, was present and armed at the direction of Zerba, was a member of the conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and committed the crime of use, carry, brandish, and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to the conspiracy to distribute marijuana. View "United States v. Zerba" on Justia Law

Ricker traveled from South Dakota to Texas to sexually abuse the seven-year-old twin daughters of an acquaintance. He took photos and videos of the abuse. Months later, South Dakota officers received information that cheer_dad17 sent and received child pornography via online chat. The internet provider disclosed that cheer_dad17 was accessing the internet from Ricker’s address. Officers obtained a search warrant. During the search, Ricker made incriminating statements and confirmed that he was "user cheer_dad17." Officers seized several devices; forensic review revealed approximately 30,000 images and more than 100 videos of child pornography and child erotica, including images of the twins.Ricker was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child who had not attained the age of 12 years; travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct; and counts related to the transportation, distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. He was deemed competent to stand trial. His evaluation included diagnostic impressions of autism spectrum disorder and major depression. The court found that Ricker had a prior conviction for possession or distribution of child pornography and sentenced him to 600 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Ricker did not assert his Fifth Amendment rights by saying that his attorney was at a funeral and that his father wanted his attorney to be present. Ricker being on the autism spectrum and English being his second language did not make his statements involuntary. The court properly excluded from the courtroom Ricker's father, a potential witness. Any error in admitting evidence cover sheets was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence. The sentence was reasonable, given that this was “one of the worst child pornography cases that the Court has seen.” View "United States v. Ricker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his vehicle. Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.The court held that the state trooper's discovery that defendant's driver's license had been suspended justifiably extended the lawful scope of the traffic stop because of defendant's legal inability to remove the vehicle from the scene and the consequential need for a licensed driver or a tow truck to do so; officers had probable cause to believe that defendant's car contained evidence of trafficking while the trooper was addressing the issue of defendant's suspended license and related vehicle removal; and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement permitted the officer to conduct a warrantless search of defendant's car following its removal from the scene. Finally, defendant was not in custody during the traffic stop and the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his unMirandized statements. View "United States v. Soderman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress firearms and drugs after defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle. In this case, the district court credited the officers' account that they observed or inferred that defendant failed to stop at a stop sign over defendant's experts' recreation of the incident ostensibly showing that was not possible. The court concluded that this was not clearly erroneous, and the officers' testimony was no so incredible or inconsistent as to justify disturbing the district court's finding. Having accepted the district court's findings of fact, the court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe defendant had committed a traffic violation. View "United States v. Holly" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief based on the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. Defendant was convicted of aggravated residential burglary, aggravated assault on a family or household member, and first-degree terroristic threatening.The court held that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to self-representation; as soon as he manifested this clear and unequivocal invocation, the proceedings should have paused, and the trial court should have conducted a proper Faretta hearing; and thus the Arkansas Supreme Court's finding to the contrary was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. The court also held that the record does not support a finding that plaintiff engaged in serious and obstructionist misconduct, and the Arkansas Supreme Court's finding to the contrary is objectively unreasonable. In this case, there is no evidence in the record that defendant was attempting to manipulate, subvert, or delay the trial process. Finally, the state waived its argument that there was a determination that plaintiff was incapable, under Faretta, of waiving his right to counsel. View "Finch v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court first concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during this arrest. In this case, detectives saw defendant shove another man and shout threatening words at him, which is itself potentially a crime under Missouri law. Because the detectives witnessed defendant committing what looked like an assault, they had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. The court also concluded that defendant has not shown that, but for the error in the jury instructions in light of Rehaif v. United States,139 S. Ct. at 2200, the outcome of his case would have been different. Therefore, defendant cannot establish plain error. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 42-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of theft of trade secrets and one count of making a false statement to the FBI, related to his access and use of confidential company information belonging to his former employer, DuPont, Inc.The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court committed no error in its factual findings as it related to its decision to vary upwards in imposing defendant's sentence; the district court committed no error in its application of the Guidelines to formulate defendant's sentencing range; and the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts as a basis to increase defendant's sentence. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not err in considering defendant's traffic infractions and past drug conviction in fashioning his sentence. Furthermore, the district court did not err by utilizing its wide latitude in assigning weight to specific sentencing factors, and nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court imposed a disproportionate sentence for defendant's crimes. View "United States v. Isler" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor. On remand, after denying defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court imposed a sentence of 151 months imprisonment and supervised release for life, and imposed a special assessment of $5,000 pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court clearly weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation. However, the court found that the district court clearly erred in its implicit finding that defendant was non-indigent and thus in imposing the special assessment. In this case, the district court clearly erred in not accounting for defendant's substantial negative net worth when it found he had the ability to pay in the future. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Barthman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm; one count of simple possession of methamphetamine; and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics offense.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and held that the district court did not err in finding that the officers' search of defendant's person was reasonable. In this case, officers ordered defendant to the ground and patted him down, they knew he had been riding in a stolen vehicle and they knew that the driver had not complied with the officers' demands following the stop. Furthermore, at that point in the tense standoff, officers possessed reasonable suspicion that defendant's possible involvement with the stolen vehicle made him guilty of tampering or car theft, and they were permitted to pat him down for weapons pursuant to Terry v. Ohio. Therefore, the guns and drugs found during the pat-down were admissible. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Nelson and Sykes pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. Both were serving state sentences at the time of their convictions. The district court sentenced Nelson to 77 months’ imprisonment and Sykes to 60 months’ imprisonment, with each federal sentence to run partially concurrent with the undischarged term of the respective defendant’s state sentences. The government had agreed to recommend sentences fully concurrent to the undischarged terms of state imprisonment. Both federal sentences were within the applicable advisory guideline range.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The district court addressed at length the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and the reasons given were sufficient to explain the court’s exercise of discretion on the question of concurrent sentencing. Neither state sentence was attributable solely to an offense that was relevant conduct to the federal drug conspiracy. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law