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

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that, although the district court properly applied a four-level increase for possession of a firearm "in connection with another felony offense" under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), but that a two-level increase for "using a minor to commit a crime" under USSG 3B1.4 should not have applied.In this case, the evidence showed only that defendant engaged in an arm's-length transaction with a minor. The court held that this mere joint participation in an offense as a partner, does not amount to "use" of a minor "to commit the offense" of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to Tina Jimerson and John Brown, Jr., two Arkansas prisoners serving life sentences for murder and aggravated robbery.The court held that Jimerson's Youngblood and actual innocence claims are timely under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(D), but her Brady claim is not; Brown's claims were timely under section 2244(d)(1)(D); and Brown and Jimerson have made an adequate showing excusing procedural default as to their Youngblood claims. The court also held that, under these particular circumstances where the prosecutor and law enforcement acted in concert to not only conceal the contents of the recording but also effectively concealed the fact that a recorded conversation took place, an adverse inference may be drawn and it is appropriate to weigh the value in favor of Brown and Jimerson. Therefore, under the O'Neal standard, the court is required to treat the constitutional violation as if it had substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdicts. The court reversed in part as to certain claims and affirmed in part as to certain claims, ultimately affirming the grant of habeas relief. View "Jimerson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin. The court held that the record supported the district court's conclusion that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his suitcase.Examining the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly err in finding that a reasonable officer would have believed defendant understood that the officer was requesting to search his suitcase. Although the officer's Spanish may have been imperfect, -- he referred to defendant's suitcase as a "bolsa" -- the context of the interaction and defendant's response mean it was not clearly erroneous to find that a reasonable officer would believe defendant understood the officer's request. Furthermore, the relative ease with which the officer and defendant communicated using the translation application further supports the district court's finding that it was reasonable for the officer to believe defendant consented based in part on a request using the term "bolsa"—a translation produced by the application. Finally, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the video indicates that the officer clarified any confusion that may have existed as to the meaning of his request. In this context, a reasonable officer would expect a person to understand the question "¿permite?", or "May I?", as requesting consent to search the suitcase. View "United States v. Garcia-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and cooperated with the government. The court held that there was no plain error at sentencing, and that defendant was ineligible for relief under the First Step Act. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erroneously limited the factors that it considered in determining how much to reduce her sentence, holding that it is settled that the court was permitted to consider only assistance-related considerations. Furthermore, defendant has not established that the district court refused to consider any assistance-related consideration or that explicit consideration of her preferred factors is reasonably likely to have affected the sentence. Finally, the court held that defendant is not entitled to resentencing under the First Step Act, because her conviction was not entered on or after the date of enactment of the Act. View "United States v. Felicia Massey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in determining that defendant was an armed career criminal based on his two Virginia drug convictions for offenses under Virginia Code Sec. 18.2-248. The court held that the statute is divisible, and the convictions are not broader than federal law and are serious offenses. Finally, the court held that defendant's claim that the Virginia statute has a broader mens rea requirement than federal law fails because the categorical approach does not require them to match. View "United States v. Vanoy" on Justia Law

Based on a report by the burglary victim, Goffin’s uncle, Officer Ashcraft tried to arrest Goffin for burglary and stealing handguns, bullets, and prescription pain medication. Before the arrest, several witnesses told Ashcraft that Goffin was armed, possibly intoxicated, and dangerous. When Goffin broke free from arrest, fled toward a group of bystanders, and moved as though he was reaching into his waistband, Ashcraft shot him once in the back. Goffin claims (and Ashcraft disputes) that he was patted down by another officer (Hines) just before he fled. The pat-down removed nothing from Goffin; the officer failed to discover that Goffin was carrying a loaded magazine and extra bullets. Officer Hines claims that Goffin fled before he completed the pat-down. Stolen guns were discovered within reach of where Goffin had been sitting in acar, but Goffin did not have a weapon on him. In Goffin’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the shooting that a pat-down that removes nothing from a suspect eliminates an officer’s probable cause that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm. View "Goffin v. Ashcraft" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful use of an identification document and misuse of a social security number. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions where a reasonable juror could conclude that defendant knew the permanent resident card bearing his name and photograph had been forged, counterfeited, falsely made, or unlawfully obtained when he used it to secure employment. Furthermore, a reasonable juror could conclude that defendant made the false representation regarding his purported social security number in order to deceive Midwest Concrete in order to obtain a job with the company. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Esparsa" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter after he struck and killed his nephew with his truck. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, because a reasonable jury could find defendant grossly negligent beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err by failing to instruct the jury that actual knowledge is an essential element of the offense that is separate from gross negligence, because the instructions, viewed as a whole, accurately and adequately defined the essential elements of the offense. View "United States v. Bolman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct petitioner's sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct adequate pretrial investigations. In this case, petitioner failed to identify any specific witnesses or evidence that counsel failed to uncover. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show that counsel's representation prejudiced his case. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that his new counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses, for convincing petitioner not to testify, for failing to object to or appeal the district court's answer to a jury question, and for failing to object to the district court's designation of petitioner as a career offender. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the facts underlying defendant's prior arrests were part of his history and characteristics under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and thus the district court could consider defendant's arrest records and the circumstances of those arrests. The court explained that the arrests were listed in the presentence report and gleaned from prior police reports. Furthermore, specific facts underlying the arrests may be considered for an upward departure and should be considered fair game for a variance where defendant did not object to them. The court also concluded that there is nothing here that suggested a corrected misstatement improperly influenced the district court's sentencing decision. Finally, the court held that the upward variance was not unreasonable in consideration of defendant's previous assaults, coupled with the facts underlying his arrest in this case. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law