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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's claim of evidentiary error in admitting Exhibit 113, a chart showing records of all contacts between phone numbers identified with defendant and others. The court held that, even if the exhibit was admitted without proper foundation, the error was harmless. Furthermore, like Exhibit 113, the contents of Exhibits 114 and 125 duplicate other evidence and testimony and any error in admitting them was harmless.The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice for threatening a witness; defendant's 300 month sentence was substantively reasonable; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying downward from the guidelines. View "United States v. Vera-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's contention that his three prior Minnesota robbery convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act is foreclosed by Eighth Circuit decisions issued while his appeal was pending. The court also held that defendant's challenge to his conviction, contending that his indictment violated his due process rights, falls within the scope of the appeal waiver in his knowing and voluntary plea agreement, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. View "United States v. Jackson-Bey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possessing a firearm as a felon. The court held that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires him to develop facts outside of the record before the court and so the court declined to review it; hearsay testimony about the ownership of the gun was properly admitted under the invited error doctrine; defendant has not shown that any Rehaif error affected his substantial rights; defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court explained its decision to give defendant a sentence at the top of his guidelines range; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of second degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant's charges arose from a shooting on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a) motion for a new trial because the evidence did not weigh heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred; there was no reversible error in the district court permitting three of the witnesses to meet before trial; there was no plain error in the district court's instructions to the jury regarding witness credibility; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for the jury to view the area where the victim was shot. View "United States v. Dowty" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint as failing to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff is currently serving a prison sentence and has a diagnosis of diverticulitis, a chronic colon condition that causes diarrhea and constipation.The court held that plaintiff has stated a Title II claim by sufficiently alleging that he is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA and that he was denied the benefit of the prison's privilege system by reason of his disability. The court also held that plaintiff has stated a claim under Title VI and that defendants retaliated against him for his filing of ADA grievances by taking the adverse action of rescinding his medical classification without providing a medical reevaluation or rationale. Finally, because plaintiff's complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court necessarily reversed the district court's assignment of a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. View "Rinehart v. Weitzell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court held that the trial judge did not plainly err by not recusing himself sua sponte. Even if it considered defendant's recusal arguments despite the fact that he untimely raises them for the first time on appeal, the court held that he has not shown that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In this case, the statements to which defendant cites do not show that the judge's disposition was so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.The court also rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges, holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the judge to allow an agent to testify as a lay witness about his experience in forensic interviews under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, and to not allow defendant to question the agent about an incident involving a white pick up trick. Finally, defendant failed to show plain error in the judge's decision to allow the agent to testify about his opinion that defendant was guilty based on the agent's interview with defendant. View "United States v. Delorme" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's three Iowa methamphetamine-related convictions. The court held that petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that the Iowa court's application of the Jackson sufficiency of the evidence standard was both incorrect and unreasonable; petitioner's challenges to the state court's factual findings also fail; and petitioner procedurally defaulted on his argument regarding his conviction for lithium with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The court rejected petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady claim. Finally, the court held that petitioner's sentence did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Iowa courts have held the enhancements were to apply in tandem, and petitioner's Eighth Amendment argument was procedurally defaulted. View "Stephen v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Burke, Ibrahim, and Kidd's convictions of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to strike references to the Minnesota anti-runner statute as surplusage; defendants' proposed jury instructions regarding the runner payments misstated the law and thus the district court properly declined to use it; the district court did not err by giving the final instruction that defined a scheme to defraud and, even assuming that the reference to omitting material facts was error, the error was harmless; and defendants' claims of prosecutor misconduct are rejected.Finally, the court affirmed Burke's sentence, holding that the district court did not err in calculating his advisory guideline range; the district court did not err by applying a two-level increase for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; and the district court did not erroneously make a finding that encompassed all elements of perjury. View "United States v. Kidd" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry after removal. Defendant makes a collateral attack on his 2008 removal, arguing that failure to provide him a Spanish interpretation of his Notice of Intent deprived him of the ability to challenge the government's decision to classify him as an aggravated felon, and thus depriving him of the opportunity to seek voluntary departure.The court held that, assuming that defendant was not an aggravated felon, he was not reasonably likely to have received preconclusion voluntary departure at the time of his removal in 2008. Therefore, defendant cannot show prejudice as required by 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(3), and the district court properly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. In this case, defendant failed to present compelling positive equities, like close relatives who are United States citizens or legal permanent residents, and defendant failed to reference a single case where an alien convicted of a felony sexual offense has received pre-conclusion voluntary departure. In light of defendant's serious and recent felony convictions and the lack of a sufficiently compelling counter-balancing factor at the time of his removal, the court concluded that it is not reasonably likely that he would have received pre-conclusion voluntary departure. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition to reduce defendant's sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce defendant's sentence due to the quantity of drugs, his obstruction of justice and his use of a firearm. Furthermore, the district court considered defendant's arguments and had a reasonable basis for its decision. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law