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

The Eighth Circuit held that the transferee court has jurisdiction to resolve a motion to reduce sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 when the offender is serving a term of supervised release and the sentencing court has transferred jurisdiction over the offender to another district court.In this case, the district court in Northern Iowa dismissed defendant's motion under the First Step Act, without prejudice, on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion after the transfer. The district court in Northern Illinois later denied defendant's motion for relief under the First Step Act, and he did not appeal that decision to the Seventh Circuit. The court held that the transferee court in the Northern District of Illinois was the district court with jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion to reduce sentence under the First Step Act. The court explained that the powers of the transferred court under 18 U.S.C. 3583 encompasses the authority to resolve defendant's motion under the First Step Act. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. El Herman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level role enhancement for defendant's leadership role in the offense pursuant to USSG 3B1.1(a); the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; and defendant's below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered mitigating factors such as defendant's young age, absent father, minimal education, and lack of criminal history. View "United States v. Zambrano" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his 336-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography. The district court subsequently amended the original judgment to include the specific case numbers.The court held that the amended judgment did not disturb or revise legal rights and obligations because it did not make a material change. Therefore, the amended judgment did not trigger a new time to appeal. The court stated that defendant's notice of appeal was timely as to the amended judgment, but was untimely as to the original judgment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to find whether this is a case of excusable neglect or good cause under Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) and to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Defendant challenges, among other things, the district court's admission of dual-role testimony from an officer who interpreted recorded telephone calls as both a lay and expert witness.The court held that it does not categorically prohibit dual-role testimony and when that testimony is presented in a concise and differentiated way so that there is no confusion, it may be admissible. However, in this case, the testimony at trial was not presented in a concise and differentiated fashion. The court concluded that, while portions of the officer's testimony constituted admissible expert testimony, other portions did not. The court further concluded that the officer's improper testimony did not have more than a slight influence on the jury's verdict and was therefore harmless.The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that at least 100 grams of heroin was within the scope of the conspiracy and that defendant could have reasonably foreseen the extent of the conspiracy; the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a buyer-seller instruction was not warranted by the evidence; to the extent the prosecutor's closing arguments strayed from the evidence, the error was not so obvious as to undermine the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings; and a comment defendant contends disparaged his counsel did not rise to the level of plain error affecting his substantial rights. View "United States v. Overton" on Justia Law

In 2016, plaintiff filed a pro se damages action asserting equal protection and First Amendment claims arising out of his grievances stemming from his transfer to FPC Yankton where he was denied permission to possess an aviation manual he had been allowed to have at his prior correction facility. The district court dismissed all but one claim asserting that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when an FPC Yankton Correctional Counselor retaliated against him for filing grievances by denying him prison grievance forms. The district court interpreted the action as one brought against the counselor under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and granted summary judgment, concluding that a Bivens remedy should not be implied for retaliatory denials of administrative remedies.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to prove an essential element of a First Amendment retaliation claim -- that denial of a few grievance forms would chill an inmate of ordinary firmness from filing future grievances. In this case, the record establishes that the BOP's flexible four-step process allowed plaintiff to have his initial grievance decided on the merits and then to submit a second grievance that initially bypassed the informal resolution step, which was also decided on the merits. Furthermore, there is no evidence that other inmates would not be granted comparable procedural access to BOP administrative grievance remedies. View "Gonzalez v. Bendt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of murder-for-hire. The court upheld the jury's verdict rejecting defendant's entrapment defense where defendant did not produce sufficient evidence that the ATF induced him to commit murder-for-hire. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could find that the prosecution proved defendant was predisposed to commit this crime. In this case, the evidence established that defendant previously sought to hire someone to murder his ex-wife through a fellow inmate, he contacted the purported hitman, and entered into a written contract with the purported hitman. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new trial on the entrapment defense.The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where most of defendant's complaints do not relate to anything in the adversarial process in this case. Finally, the court declined to consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. View "United States v. Harriman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bank robbery. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress statements where the special agent attempted to give defendant a Miranda warning but was repeatedly interrupted by defendant, who was noncompliant and insisted on knowing the date of the robbery. In this case, defendant's alleged alibi was not prompted by interrogation.The court also held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where the jury improperly heard testimony about his prior bank robbery convictions, because the district court gave a curative instruction and there was substantial evidence of defendant's guilt. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have sua sponte dismissed his indictment because the Government presented inaccurate testimony to the grand jury. In this case, the jury convicted defendant without the disputed evidence and the district court did not plainly err by failing to dismiss the indictment sua sponte. View "United States v. Smialek" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of Abusive Sexual Contact involving a child less than 12 years-old. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for acquittal; by admitting hearsay through a forensic interviewer's testimony and, even assuming that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony, any error was harmless; by failing to instruct the jury on specific intent; and by failing to grant a mistrial because members of the public wore clothing with the words "Bikers Against Child Abuse" where no motion was filed, no juror indicated they had seen the insignia, and there was no prejudicial impact.The court declined to reach the issues regarding the Speedy Trial Act and defendant's ability to testify in his own defense. Finally, the court held that the district court correctly rejected defendant's claim that because he is an Indian and 18 U.S.C. 1152 does not apply to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian. View "United States v. Gallardo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging defendant with illegal reentry in the United States. The court held that an alien may not collaterally attack the underlying deportation order unless: (1) the alien exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the order; (2) the deportation proceedings improperly deprived the alien of an opportunity for judicial review; and (3) entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.In this case, defendant failed to meet his burden on any of the elements. Furthermore, even if defendant could collaterally attack the deportation order under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2115 (2018), his attack fails. Therefore, the immigration court had jurisdiction over defendant's deportation proceedings and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Aquilar Escobar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. The court held that the district court did not commit clear error in denying the Batson challenge where the reason proffered for the challenged strike was that the juror appeared disinterested and was very hard to engage; the district court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss the indictment and allowing each side an opportunity to explore the circumstances of the pre-trial investigation; the district court did not err when it denied defendant's claim based on the elicitation of false testimony; even if the prosecutor acted improperly at trial, the court cannot find that these actions—considered separately or together—prejudiced defendant to such an extent as to render his trial fundamentally unfair; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; and defendant's 240 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Marlon Iron Crow" on Justia Law