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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The court held that the district court's jury instructions adequately covered the substance of defendant's proposed instruction on "mere presence" and the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's proposed instruction. In this case, defendant's proposed mere presence instruction would have been largely duplicative, and the instructions as a whole already conveyed that the government must prove more than proximity to the gun and drugs in order to convict. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Defendant's prior Arkansas convictions for possession of child pornography qualified as prior convictions under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(b)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court held that defendant's contention that the Arkansas statute punished more conduct than its federal counterpart is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Mayokok, 854 F. 3d 987 (8th Cir. 2017). In this case, defendant's prior convictions related to the possession of child pornography. View "United States v. Box" on Justia Law

After the district court granted defendant's motion to stay the execution, the execution date passed, and the government appealed. Defendant argued that the government's appeal is moot because the execution date has passed and the execution has not been rescheduled.The Eighth Circuit held that there is a live controversy over the validity of the district court's ongoing injunction. Furthermore, that another district court also had enjoined defendant's execution on different grounds, does not preclude the government from appealing this order too. The court held that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in relying on Chambers v. Bowersox, 197 F.3d 308 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), to justify a stay of execution pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943. Therefore, an appreciable chance that Banister could allow for additional judicial consideration of defendant's previously denied Rule 59(e) motion was not sufficient to justify a stay of execution. The court vacated the district court's order. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and six related gun and money laundering counts. The court held that the inventory search of defendant's motorcycle was lawful and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence. In this case, the inventory search was not a pretext for an investigatory search where the district court did not clearly err in crediting the officer's testimony that he towed the motorcycle because defendant lacked the proper endorsement and had no insurance. Furthermore, the officer towed the vehicle because defendant could not lawfully drive the vehicle and the vehicle was a safety hazard on the street.The court also held that defendant's 460 month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Although the district court did not expressly discuss defendant's mental health and emotional issues as mitigating factors, the court indicated that it had reviewed his sentencing memorandum that identified these mitigating factors. View "United States v. Nevatt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed five defendants' sentences imposed after they each pleaded guilty to charges related to their involvement in a prostitution and sex trafficking conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a sentencing enhancement for exerting undue influence over a minor victim; for an offense involving the commission of a sex act or sexual contact under USSG 2G1.3(b)(4)(A); and for an offense involving the commission of a sex act or sexual contact under USSG 2G1.3(b)(4)(A). The court also held that Defendant Carter and Coleman's sentences were substantively reasonable and the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing them. Furthermore, the district court did not err in setting the base offense levels for Defendants Sarina, Ronzell, and Brown. The court found no error in defendants' sentences and rejected their claims to the contrary. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and sentenced to 240 months in prison. The district court considered the sentence appropriate and subsequently denied defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not improperly calculate the advisory guideline range by finding that defendant was accountable for more than 30 kilograms of cocaine base; the district court did not clearly err in applying a base offense level of 38 given the testimony at trial and defendant's role as a supplier for the conspiracy; and the district court did not err by declining to respond explicitly to defendant's plea based on alleged post-sentencing rehabilitation. View "United States v. Sherman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 from 55 years to 40 years in prison. The court held that the Act applies to offenses, not conduct. Because the statute of conviction in defendant's case required only proof that he conspired to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and the Act reduced the penalties for a 50-gram conspiracy, he is eligible for a reduction.The court also held that, although the district court did not address defendant's argument regarding whether his sentence was based on post-sentence rehabilitation, resentencing was not warranted on this record. In this case, the district court implicitly rejected defendant's contention that earning a certificate in General Education Development, completing education and personal betterment courses, and other mitigating factors warranted a greater reduction. Furthermore, the district court concluded that a sentence within the advisory range was appropriate in light of several aggravating factors, and no further explanation was required. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography. The court held that the prosecutor's comments at sentencing did not breach the plea agreement where the government was not obligated to zealously defend the joint recommendation in the face of the sentencing court's hostility. Furthermore, even if error was assumed, defendant would not merit relief because he has failed to show "a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence had the government not breached the agreement." In this case, the district judge had already expressed doubt about the joint recommendation in light of the disturbing and concerning facts of the case. View "United States v. Zurheide" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of cocaine. The court also affirmed defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice for retaliating against a witness.The court held that the district court did not procedurally err in declining to grant a downward departure for the time defendant spent in county jails; the district court's factual findings that the case was delayed because defendant refused to get along with his appointed counsel and made multiple requests for new counsel were consistent with the record and not clearly erroneous; defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances was not substantively unreasonable; and the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in making defendant's separate sentence for obstruction of justice run consecutive to the drug conspiracy offense. View "United States v. Sauceda" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that voluntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. 1112 qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) because it has an element of force against the person of another. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that there is no material difference between the force clause at issue in United States v. Fogg, 836 F.3d at 956, and the force clause under section 924(c)(3)(A). View "McCoy v. United States" on Justia Law