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

After defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing a false tax return, he unsuccessfully tried to withdraw his plea. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that defendant failed to show fair and just reasons why he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea where the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, based on the totality of the circumstances, that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; his plea did not lack a factual basis supporting the conviction; and the Government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility.The court also held that the Klein conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 was not void for vagueness; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to continue his sentencing or to bifurcate the sentencing and restitution proceedings; there was no error in the district court's order of restitution; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1. View "United States v. Flynn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of child pornography and possession of a visual depiction involving a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The court held that photographs of four life-sized dolls found in defendant's bedroom were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) where the dolls were relevant to overcome the defense by showing defendant's motive for acquiring and distributing child pornography.The court also held that admission of testimony from a witness about viewing child pornography with defendant was admissible under Rule 414, because twenty-year-old evidence of child molestation can be probative and admissible where, as here, it is similar to the charged offense. In light of the extensive evidence of child pornography seized from defendant's residence, other evidence about his sexual interest in minors and history of viewing child pornography, and the minimal likely impact of the traffic cone with the word "chimo" on it (short for child molester) when viewed in context of the entire trial, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial. View "United States v. Bartunek" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and completed his initial prison sentence, defendant violated the terms of his supervised release. The district court resentenced defendant to one year in prison followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to modify the conditions of supervised release.The Eighth Circuit first held that the district court had authority to rule on defendant's request for the district court to exercise its statutory authority to modify the terms of his supervised release, and there is no barrier to the court's review of the district court's judgment on appeal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to modify or eliminate the condition restricting his access to the internet, computers, and media storage devices. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining the conditions related to barring contact with minors. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to modify the condition prohibiting defendant from shopping or working at a business that derives a majority of its revenue from the sale of alcohol. View "United States v. Trimble" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 where petitioner raised two grounds for relief under the Sixth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree sodomy, and two counts of incest based on his sexual abuse of his stepdaughter starting when she was nine years old.The court held that the Missouri Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court's decision to exclude evidence regarding possible other sources for the victim's sexual knowledge was not contrary to or an unreasonable interpretation of federal law as clearly established by the Supreme Court. The court also held that trial counsel's failure to object to the expert witness's testimony did not deny petitioner effective assistance of counsel because the evidence was admissible and an objection would have been meritless. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the record contained all the facts necessary to resolve petitioner's claims, and that no further evidentiary development was required. View "Sittner v. Bowersox" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Ross and King's convictions and sentences for multiple federal charges arising from the carjacking, kidnapping, and murder of Jaime Patton. Jaime was abducted in his Jeep Patriot while leaving the hospital to buy his pregnant wife, who was about to give birth to their second child, a muffin and milk from a convenience store.The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of kidnapping and carjacking that resulted in felony murder; a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 constitutes a "crime of violence" under section 924(c), and defendants were properly convicted under section 924(j) of causing death through use of a firearm in the course of a carjacking; the evidence was sufficient to support Ross's convictions for kidnapping, for carjacking resulting in death, for using a firearm in furtherance of a carjacking resulting in felony murder, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a text message between the defendants; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give defendants' requested jury instructions; defendants' combined mandatory minimum sentences on counts two, three, and five did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and King's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, Defendants Luna, Forthun, and Hussein were convicted of charges related to their membership in a recruitment-and-kickback scheme involving car-accident victims, a chiropractic clinic, and automobile insurers.The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Forthun committed mail and wire fraud, that both Luna and Hussein were his accomplices, and that all three entered into a conspiracy to defraud insurers. The court also held that the district court failed to consider the possibility of offsets to Forthun's sentence and to the size of the restitution awards. Therefore, the court vacated Forthun's sentence and remanded for resentencing. However, the court held that the forfeiture order stands because the reimbursement for all 500 patients were "gross proceeds" of the fraud itself. View "United States v. Luna" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court held that the undisputed facts taken together establish a nexus between defendant and his wife sufficient to support the district court's finding of constructive possession. In this case, the couple's joint occupancy of the home and joint possession of the three firearms support an inference that defendant had knowledge of, and access to the pistol found in his wife's vehicle.The court also held that there was no plain Rehaif error that warrants giving defendant another opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea that he did not seek to withdraw at sentencing. The court explained that defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known of Rehaif. View "United States v. Caudle" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion by not addressing defendant's request that the sentence be made concurrent with an anticipated state sentence; the district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err by deciding not to explain why it did not vary downward when defendant did not request further explanation; the district court did not clearly err in finding that this was jointly undertaken criminal activity and therefore the total quantity of unsold drugs found in the car should be attributed to each participant; and any error in determining drug quantity for sentencing purposes was harmless. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not err by declining to accept defendant's proposed amendment to the jury instruction defining "possession;" the district court's jury instructions were accurate and defendant was not entitled to a particularly worded instruction as long as the instructions were fair and adequate; and the district court correctly informed the jury that constructive possession requires knowledge of the thing possessed.The court also held that there was no plain error warranting relief based on the indictment or jury instructions; any Rehaif error did not affect defendant's substantial rights warranting relief; and there was sufficient evidence on the knowledge-of-status element to sustain the verdict. View "United States v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas' method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, seeking information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. NDCS objected and asserted that the subpoena violated Nebraska's right to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.In In Re Missouri Dep't of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that there is no authority for the position that the Eleventh Amendment shields government entities from discovery in federal court. Therefore, the district court properly determined that Missouri DNR disposes of the sovereign immunity issue. Although Missouri DNR involved a petition for a writ of mandamus, the court found that the breadth of the decision controlling and applicable in this de novo review context as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services" on Justia Law