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

Robert Carl Sharp was released from federal prison in 2012 and later sold herbal incense products containing a synthetic cannabinoid, AB-FUBINACA, while on supervised release. He was arrested in 2014 for violating his supervised release terms. During a proffer interview, Sharp, represented by attorney Joel Schwartz, admitted to selling synthetic cannabinoids to several individuals. In 2015, Sharp was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement but later sought to withdraw his plea, claiming Schwartz had a conflict of interest due to previous representation of potential witnesses.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Sharp's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding Schwartz credible and Sharp not credible. Sharp was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction, concluding that Sharp had not shown that proceeding to trial would have been objectively reasonable or that Schwartz's advice to plead guilty was linked to an actual conflict of interest.Sharp then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to Schwartz's alleged conflict of interest from previous representation of other individuals involved in the case. The district court denied the motion, determining that Sharp had not shown Schwartz failed to pursue a reasonable alternative defense strategy due to any conflicts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of Sharp's § 2255 motion, affirming the district court's decision. The court held that Sharp did not demonstrate that any alleged conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation, nor did he show that his new counsel, Michael Lahammer, performed deficiently. Thus, the court concluded that Sharp was not denied effective assistance of counsel and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sharp v. United States" on Justia Law

Edwin Giovanni Salinas was stopped by law enforcement on the Lake Traverse Reservation in South Dakota. He was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Berta Rosmelvi Gonzales, who initially provided false identification. After her arrest, officers found Salinas throwing items inside the vehicle. They discovered methamphetamine in Gonzales’s purse and a backpack containing fentanyl in the trunk. Salinas and Gonzales were charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. A jury found Salinas guilty on both counts.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota calculated a base offense level of 34 for Salinas, applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(13) for trafficking counterfeit fentanyl pills and additional enhancements for his role in the offense. The court imposed a life sentence, citing Salinas’s presence on the reservation with a large quantity of fentanyl and the potential harm to the community.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(13) enhancement, finding sufficient evidence that Salinas acted with willful blindness regarding the counterfeit nature of the pills. However, the court held that the district court procedurally erred by basing the life sentence on clearly erroneous facts, specifically the unproven intention to distribute drugs on the reservation. The appellate court vacated Salinas’s life sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Salinas" on Justia Law

Camron Jordan Henry pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court sentenced him to 46 months in prison. Henry appealed the sentence, specifically challenging the application of a sentencing enhancement for "reckless endangerment during flight" under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. This enhancement applies if the defendant recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person while fleeing from law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri applied the enhancement, noting that Henry fled from police with a loaded gun in his pocket, which posed a substantial risk of accidental discharge. The court inferred that there was a crowd present during Henry's flight, which increased the potential danger. Henry did not object to this inference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's findings for clear error. The appellate court noted that other circuits have required "something more" than mere possession of a firearm during flight to support the enhancement, such as the firearm being loaded or cocked. The Eighth Circuit found that Henry's case met this criterion because he carried a loaded, chambered, unholstered gun, which created the possibility of accidental discharge. The presence of bystanders further supported the application of the enhancement.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the application of the sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight was appropriate given the circumstances of Henry's case. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Rufus E. Dennis was convicted by a jury of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, and possession of a stolen firearm. He was sentenced to 270 months in prison. Dennis appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed his robbery conviction and two firearm convictions but vacated his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor. The case was remanded for resentencing.On remand, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska imposed a 240-month sentence. Dennis appealed again, arguing that the district court erred procedurally and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. He contended that the district court improperly applied a five-level enhancement under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing or possessing a firearm during the robbery, despite not having obtained a handgun. The district court found that Dennis intended to possess a firearm during the robbery, based on his repeated discussions and actions to acquire one.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement, as Dennis's conduct demonstrated with reasonable certainty his intent to possess a firearm. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-range sentence, considering the nature and circumstances of the offense and the potential harm to vulnerable individuals. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Dennis" on Justia Law

This case involves a large methamphetamine conspiracy centered in Kansas City, Missouri. Trevor Scott Sparks, the alleged leader, was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and firearms-related offenses. Markus Michael A. Patterson and Gerald L. Ginnings pled guilty to similar charges. They appealed various issues, including evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, Sentencing Guidelines calculations, and the reasonableness of their sentences.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri handled the initial proceedings. Sparks was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two concurrent life terms plus additional imprisonment. Patterson and Ginnings pled guilty and received sentences of 560 months and 520 months, respectively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Sparks raised five issues on appeal, including the admission of evidence related to uncharged murders, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, application of a Sentencing Guidelines cross-reference for first-degree murder, and the reasonableness of his life sentence. The court found that the evidence of the murders was intrinsic to the conspiracy and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Sparks' convictions and upheld the jury instructions given. The application of the murder cross-reference was deemed appropriate based on Sparks' involvement in the murders. The court also found Sparks' life sentence reasonable given his leadership role and violent conduct.Patterson challenged the application of the murder cross-reference and the drug quantity calculation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the cross-reference and upheld the drug quantity calculation. Ginnings argued that the district court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court found no error in the district court's reliance on trial evidence and upheld the sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in each case. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Najawaun Quinn, Dimetri Smith, and three others were charged with 18 counts of racketeering and firearm offenses related to their association with the Savage Life Boys Gang (SLB Gang) in Davenport, Iowa. The other three defendants pleaded guilty. After a trial, Quinn was found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. Smith was found guilty of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and two counts of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The district court denied their motions for judgment of acquittal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that the SLB Gang constituted an "enterprise" under the racketeering statute, as it had a common purpose, relationships among members, and sufficient longevity. The court also found that Quinn and Smith committed the violent assaults to maintain or increase their positions within the gang. The court rejected the argument that the SLB Gang lacked the necessary structure to be considered an enterprise.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the SLB Gang was an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity and that Quinn and Smith committed the violent assaults to maintain or increase their positions within the gang. The court also upheld the jury instructions and sentencing decisions, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error. The court concluded that the district court's factual determinations were supported by the evidence and that the defendants were not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Quinn" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Mexico, Lilia Salinas, who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007, was convicted in North Dakota state court in 2011 for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. She received a suspended sentence of 360 days’ imprisonment. In 2021, she was convicted again in North Dakota state court for two counts of aggravated assault of a victim under 12 years of age, receiving a 10-year sentence with one year suspended. Based on these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her in 2022, charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for a controlled substance violation and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse.An immigration judge (IJ) found Salinas removable under both charges, applying the categorical approach to determine that her marijuana conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense under federal law. The IJ compared the North Dakota definition of marijuana at the time of her conviction with the federal definition in effect at that time, concluding they were substantially similar. The IJ also pretermitted her application for cancellation of removal, as her 2011 conviction stopped the clock on her period of continuous residence, making her ineligible for relief.Salinas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the IJ should have compared the state statute to the federal definition in effect at the time of her removal proceedings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the appropriate comparison was with the federal definition at the time of conviction and that the state and federal definitions were a categorical match.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court held that the proper comparison for determining removability under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is between the state statute at the time of conviction and the federal Controlled Substances Act in effect at that time. The court also rejected Salinas’s argument that the North Dakota definition of marijuana was overbroad compared to the federal definition. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Salinas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Roberto Williams was convicted by a jury of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. The charges stemmed from two separate incidents. In the first incident, on July 31, 2020, St. Cloud police officers stopped a car in which Williams was a passenger and found a handgun in the glove compartment. In the second incident, on November 13, 2020, after a fatal shooting involving Williams's fiancée's son, police found two firearms in a garbage bin outside Williams's home.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Williams's pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained during the July 31 stop and from a warrant search of his cell phone. The court also denied his motion to exclude evidence of five prior Illinois convictions, which Williams argued were invalid and could not serve as predicates for the felon-in-possession charges. Williams was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on each count.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Williams's motion to suppress evidence from the July 31 stop, concluding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress evidence from the cell phone search, applying the Leon good faith exception. Additionally, the court rejected Williams's argument that his prior Illinois convictions were invalid, holding that his motion was an impermissible collateral attack on the state convictions, which had not been vacated by an Illinois court.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining Williams's convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Dontavius R. Sharkey was convicted by a jury of two counts of felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of a straw-purchasing conspiracy. The district court sentenced him to 360 months in prison. Sharkey appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutional and that the district court improperly used acquitted conduct to enhance his sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found Sharkey's acquitted conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence and used it to increase his Guidelines range. Sharkey's arguments against the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the use of acquitted conduct were rejected based on existing precedent. The district court also applied enhancements for using a firearm in connection with another felony and for his role as an organizer in the criminal activity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Sharkey's constitutional challenges were foreclosed by precedent, specifically citing United States v. Jackson. The court also upheld the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing, referencing United States v. Watts and United States v. Bullock. Additionally, the court found no procedural error in the application of the Guidelines enhancements and determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly considered the relevant factors and did not give undue weight to any improper or irrelevant factors. View "United States v. Sharkey" on Justia Law

Robert Peck, Jr. entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss one of the charges. The case arose from an investigation in July 2020, where officers, acting on anonymous tips, used a drug-sniffing dog to detect drugs outside Peck's apartment. Based on the dog's alert, they obtained a warrant and found drugs and firearms in Peck's apartment.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Peck's motions to suppress the evidence obtained from his apartment and cell phone, as well as his motion to dismiss the firearm possession charge. The court ruled that the officers did not trespass on Peck's curtilage and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The court also found that applying the firearm possession statute to Peck did not violate the Second Amendment, despite his prior nonviolent drug conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the good-faith exception applied, as the officers reasonably relied on existing precedent when using the drug-sniffing dog. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the firearm possession statute as applied to Peck, citing precedent that supports prohibiting firearm possession by individuals with felony convictions, regardless of the nature of the prior offense. View "United States v. Peck" on Justia Law