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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 292 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the conspiracy involved between 3,000 and 10,000 grams of heroin and imposing a base offense level of 32; the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's application of the criminal livelihood enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(16)(E); the district court did not err in finding that defendant managed or supervised the criminal activity and applying a three-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b); and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the mitigating factors and varying upwards. View "United States v. Denson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 57 month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court also held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors. View "United States v. Cosen" on Justia Law

Defendant Basic appealed his conspiracy conviction and the district court's drug-quantity determination, and Defendant Shaw appealed the drug-quantity determination and an obstruction-of-justice enhancement applied to her sentence.The Eighth Circuit held that the circumstantial evidence here is sufficient to establish that Basic voluntarily and intentionally reached an agreement with Shaw to distribute a controlled substance and, at the time of joining, knew the essential purpose of the agreement. The court also held that the district court did not err in calculating the drug quantity, and the district court did not err by imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 3C1.1. to Shaw's sentence for obstruction of justice based on her attempt to stifle a witness's incriminating testimony. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to request a Franks hearing where petitioner has not established that the results of his proceedings would have been different even if his counsel requested a Franks hearing or challenged the warrant on probable cause grounds. The court also held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to move to challenge the validity of the search warrant and the existence of probable cause where the magistrate judge's alleged error, even if it is error, did not affect the validity of the warrant; to move to suppress the evidence found on petitioner's cell phones where counsel's failure to raise a novel argument does not render his performance constitutionally ineffective; and to file a motion to suppress his confession where counsel did not act outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. View "O'Neil v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for six drug-related offenses. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute a controlled substance resulting in serious bodily injury or death; distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death or serious bodily injury; and distribution of heroin arising out of the controlled buys set up by law enforcement in March 2016. The court denied defendant's motion to correct the record and his pro se motion to file a supplemental brief. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the common law knock-and-announce rule does not apply when officers enter an open door and that the officers conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the district court did not clearly err when it found defendant's son entered the family house without closing the door, and the officer entered defendant's home with a felony arrest warrant and a reasonable belief he was present.The court also held that the district court did not procedurally err when it overruled defendant's objection to an obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant gave deceptive testimony that the front door was kicked open. Furthermore, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered a variety of factors at sentencing and did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant to the statutory maximum penalty of 120 months in prison when the Guidelines recommended he serve between 235 and 293 months in prison. View "United States v. Sherrod" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under Section 603(b) of the First Step Act. Defendant was convicted of four counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud for defrauding investors. The court need not determine whether the district court erred in adhering to the policy statements in USSG 1B1.13, because the district court knew its discretion. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying his compassionate release motion, stating that the court does not require district courts to mechanically recite the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court held that the district court appropriately reviewed the record evidence and found defendant's case not sufficiently persuasive to warrant relief. View "United States v. Rodd" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to nine counts of wire fraud, two counts of tax evasion, and one count of making and subscribing a false tax return. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 3B1.3 for abusing a position of private trust. In this case, it is clear that defendant would not have been able to commit or conceal her fraud if not for the discretion she was granted through her position as an office manager and bookkeeper in the company. View "United States v. Natysin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of receipt of child pornography and the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, law enforcement officers seized and searched defendant's devices under authorized warrants based on information furnished by Google, Inc. and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).The court held that the district court did not err when it found that Google's search of defendant's email accounts constituted a private search. In this case, Google did not act as a government agent because it scanned its users' emails volitionally and out of its own private business interests. Furthermore, Google did not become a government agent merely because it had a mutual interest in eradicating child pornography from its platform. Therefore, Google's continued actions in its own interest and the government's continued receipt of the reports does not give rise to some form of agency. Finally, the court held that because the investigator searched only the same files that Google searched, the government did not expand the search beyond Google's private party search. View "United States v. Ringland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The court rejected defendant's contention that he was convicted in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, because defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of systemic exclusion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in defining reasonable doubt or in rejecting defendant's proposed instruction on the burden of proof; defendant's Rehaif claim failed because there was ample evidence that he was aware of his status as a person convicted of an offense punishable by more than a year in prison where he had served 22 years in prison; defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's supplemental instruction to the jury; sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction; the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Owens" on Justia Law