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

In 2006, Cain was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. Guideline changes reduced his sentence to 151 months. His five-year term of supervised release began in 2016. Within 14 months, he was revoked for testing positive for cocaine nine times over a six-month period. Cain pled guilty, in state court, to attempted possession of 19.7 grams of methamphetamine, indicating attempted sales because his addictions were to cocaine and alcohol, not meth. Cain admitted violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court sentenced him to 48 months' imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit upheld the sentence as substantively reasonable, rejecting Cain’s argument that the district court should have given more weight to the guidelines range of five-11 months and to his probation officer's recommendation of eight months plus 24 months of supervised release. The district judge, who had presided over his trial and prior revocation, used the court’s “wide latitude” to weigh the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and to assign some factors greater weight. The court did not indicate that Cain’s revocation sentence is a punishment for his new criminal conduct but emphasized that his multiple violations demonstrate that he cannot be adequately supervised outside prison, where he can receive drug or alcohol treatment. The court mentioned the new criminal conduct only to show that the “conduct requiring revocation is associated with a high risk of new felonious conduct.” View "United States v. Cain" on Justia Law

Following a shooting, police went to Roberts’s apartment to execute a search warrant on the residence and a Durango vehicle. Officers found firearms. An officer stated Roberts was not under arrest. Roberts admitted he brought the guns into the residence from the Durango, where “Mike” had left them. The officers noted possible federal firearm charges because they knew Roberts was a felon. The officers did not arrest Roberts, but read his Miranda rights, despite Roberts saying “you don’t have to.” Officers asked if Roberts wanted to continue to talk. Roberts replied, “Not really,” but continued the interview. He admitted driving a man to the crime scene on the night of the shooting in the Durango. Roberts was arrested hours later. Roberts entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the affidavit supplied with the search warrant application gave the judge probable cause to believe that Roberts drove the vehicle associated with a shooting on the night of the shooting and that evidence of the crime would be found in the truck or his residence. Roberts’s incriminating statements before receiving Miranda warnings were admissible; he was not in custody and the statements were voluntary. Roberts's prior Illinois and Iowa convictions were controlled substance offenses for purposes of sentencing under Guidelines 4B1.1(a). View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial where the government's closing argument was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); there was no error in admitting forensic testimony by the government's experts because their testimony on the absence of DNA and fingerprints on the firearms and ammunition was relevant and helpful to the jury; and there was no error in admitting a photo of defendant in handcuffs where the district court gave a cautionary instruction.The court further held that the district court did not err by sentencing defendant as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1(a); by imposing an enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises; and by imposing an enhancement under USSG 3B1.1 for leadership role in the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence, holding that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. In explaining the revocation sentence it was imposing, the district court discussed defendant's history and characteristics, observing that his criminal history was "replete with violence and assaultive behavior," and assaultive incidents illustrated defendant's "impulsive and violent behavior." The district court also took into account and considered all the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors that apply in a revocation hearing, directly responding to the "disrespect" complaint in defendant's allocution. Therefore, the district court neither gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor nor abused its substantial discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. Defendant alleged that, absent the district court's advice, he likely would have accepted the government's offer and received a lighter sentence. The government concedes that the district court plainly crossed the line as soon as it suggested, with a plea deal still on the table, that defendant could do better if he went to trial.The court held that there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have pleaded guilty but for the district judge's comments at the plea proceedings. In light of the circumstances, the court determined that the remedy that best balances the competing objectives is vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for resentencing before a different judge. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence as an armed career criminal after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court was entitled to treat the fact that defendant was convicted of the 1997 robbery offense as established where the government failed to produce the charging document. In this case, defendant did not object to the PSR's recitation that he was, in fact, convicted of the 1997 robbery offense.The court has held that a charging document can provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant was necessarily convicted of a violent felony offense, but no case has held that the government must produce the charging document to establish the fact of conviction. The court also held that precedent establishes that defendant's 1997 Missouri first degree robbery conviction categorically qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause. Therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Witherspoon" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to violate federal health care laws, as well as eleven substantive counts of health care fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict where defendant voluntarily and intentionally participated in a conspiracy with knowledge that it was unjustifiable and wrongful to receive kickbacks and defraud Medicare. In this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence of significant experience with federal health care program reimbursements, his attestation that he would comply with federal anti-kickback laws, and his collection of specimens without a doctor's orders, is collectively enough evidence to support a conclusion that he knew the arrangement with AMS was unjustifiable and wrongful when he voluntarily joined the conspiracy. View "United States v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's reduction of defendant's sentence to 277 months' imprisonment under the First Step Act. The court held that defendant's suggestion that the district court did not understand its First Step Act discretion is without merit where the district court expressly recognized and exercised its discretion to reduce his sentence. Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that the district court did not understand the scope of its discretion under the First Step Act. In determining the extent of the reduction, the district court placed emphasis on a proportional reduction based on defendant's advisory range under the current guidelines. Thus, the district court had a reasoned basis for its decision and did not abuse its substantial discretion.The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court's summary procedure violated the "complete review" provision of Section 404(c) of the First Step Act and deprived defendant of Due Process. The court explained that defendant had notice of the district court's proposed action and an opportunity to respond before the district court issued an order adequately explaining the basis for its decision. There was no constitutional procedural obligation to do more. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant relief under the First Step Act. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court violated his right to a complete review and held that the district court's conclusion that defendant's initial sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to address the essential sentencing considerations was sufficient to satisfy the court that the district court had considered the parties' arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own decisionmaking authority. Finally, the court held that Section 404 of the First Step Act does not require district courts to analyze the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in making their decisions. In this case, there was no abuse of the district court's substantial sentencing discretion in denying defendant relief under the First Step Act. View "United States v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for sexually abusing a minor on a United States military installation and transporting an individual across state lines to engage in sexual activity. The court rejected defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct where the cumulative effect of the alleged prosecutorial misdeeds did not violate defendant's right to a fair trial; the government presented testimony from 16 witnesses as well as other evidence against defendant; the district court provided curative instructions to the jury; and defendant's arguments simply do not establish the kind of cumulative and pervasive misconduct that has warranted reversal in other cases.The court also held that defendant waived his challenge as to one witness's unavailability and the district court did not plainly err in admitting her prior testimony; the district court did not plainly err by not requiring defendant's witness to testify; the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less plainly err, in allowing defendant's ex-wife to testify as to out-of-court statements made to her by their housekeepers when the couple lived in India; and the court declined to consider defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. View "United States v. Ralston" on Justia Law