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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). After defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, he sought the return of three ATVs and video surveillance equipment seized by the sheriff's office. Two stolen ATVs were returned to their rightful owners; the sheriff's office held the third ATV for the requisite statutory period before auctioning it pursuant to state law; and the sheriff's office disposed of the video surveillance equipment.The court agreed with the district court that the uncontested record shows that the sheriff's office seized the ATVs for reasons unrelated to the federal prosecution, and thus the government did not constructively possess the ATVs. Furthermore, the surveillance systems were derivative contraband. Finally, the district court did not err by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's Rehaif claim and held that the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights under the third prong of plain error review. In this case, at the change-of-plea hearing, defendant previously admitted that he had been convicted of three prior felonies but said he did not remember the other two. View "United States v. Gant" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and four counts of health care fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant entered into an agreement with others to create a medical testing lab that made money through illegal kickbacks. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that members of the conspiracy committed substantive violations and defendant, as a co-conspirator, was properly held liable for these substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the scheme. View "United States v. Golding" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for receipt or attempted receipt of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in admitting images of a female minor relative defendant had uploaded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); in striking an FBI agent's testimony regarding defendant's children; and by permitting the agent to explain why the FBI requested a no-knock warrant.The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict convicting him of the knowing receipt of child pornography, as opposed to the lesser included offense of knowing access of child pornography. Finally, the court held that defendant's below-Guidelines sentence of 110 months' imprisonment was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Croghan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to violate federal health care laws and eleven counts of health care fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a health care fraud scheme involving AMS, an entity that provided medical testing of blood, urine, and other specimens.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant voluntarily and intentionally participated in the conspiracy with knowledge that his plan to receive kickback payments and defraud Medicare was unjustifiable and wrongful. In this case, the evidence of defendant's significant experience within the health care industry combined with his attempt to conceal the true terms of his agreement with AMS was enough for the jury to conclude he knew the arrangement was unjustifiable and wrongful when he knowingly became a part of the conspiracy. View "United States v. McTizic" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the officers discovered the gun in defendant's possession in a routine search incident to his arrest where the officer had a valid arrest warrant and had positively identified defendant before entering the property; the officer could lawfully enter the curtilage to make an arrest with the warrant; and any intrusion on defendant's privacy interest was minimal.The court also affirmed the district court's determination that defendant did not qualify for a 15-year minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), because defendant's prior conviction for going armed with intent, in violation of Iowa Code 708.8, does not constitute an ACCA predicate violent felony. The court explained that going armed with intent does not necessarily involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three counts of drug and gun charges. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for conspiracy to distribute heroin, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine, as well as for possessing firearms as a convicted felon. The court also held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on defendant's claim that the jury was not representative of a cross-section of the community where defendant failed to provide evidence of the racial composition of the jury pool used by the District of Minnesota, or even the composition of the potential jurors called for his trial.Finally, the court upheld defendant's within-Guidelines 240 month sentence, holding that the district court expressly recognized its authority to vary based on a disagreement with the crack cocaine conversion rate but declined to do so. The court stated that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to vary downward and that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's reduction of defendant's life sentence to 360 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. The district court left defendant's 360 month sentence for distributing five grams or more of cocaine base unchanged.The court held that the district court understood its authority and discretion to resentence defendant under the First Step Act. In this case, the district court concluded that defendant was entitled to retroactive relief under the Act and that the Sentencing Guidelines recommended defendant serve between 360 months and life in prison because of his total offense level and criminal history, rather than the previous mandatory life sentence. The court also held that the district court considered defendant's motion and had a reasoned basis for its discretion. Finally, the court held that there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor is there a statutory right, in sentence modification proceedings under the Act. Although the Southern District of Iowa's standing administrative order permitted the public defender's office to represent eligible defendants, the court held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to act on defendant's repeated requests to reduce his sentence. View "United States v. Meeks" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a gun seized without a warrant during a traffic stop and his subsequent statements to law enforcement. The court held that, based on the information the officers knew at the moment they seized the gun, they had probable cause to believe defendant possessed the weapon.The court also held that, although the district court erred by failing to suppress defendant's statements, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The court further held that the district court did not err by deciding that defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights when he agreed to speak with the officers and then to the special agent. View "United States v. Figueroa-Serrano" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a child, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and distribution of the drug. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. View "United States v. Frommelt" on Justia Law