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

The defendant, Gregory Lukassen, was found guilty of child pornography offenses by a jury and sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment by the district court. The charges stemmed from several cyber tips received by law enforcement officers regarding Lukassen's suspicious internet activity in 2015, 2017, and 2019. In January 2020, Lukassen admitted to engaging in online chats about sexual fantasies involving minors and receiving explicit images of children. A search warrant was obtained for Lukassen's truck, where several electronic devices were seized. Child pornography was found on a computer and a MicroSD card. Lukassen was charged with receipt and distribution of child pornography and possession of child pornography. His motions to suppress evidence and for judgment of acquittal were denied.The district court denied Lukassen's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the issuance of the search warrant for his electronic devices was supported by probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment. The court also denied Lukassen's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding that a rational jury could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. At sentencing, the court vacated Lukassen's conviction for possession of child pornography, agreeing with the government's suggestion that convictions and sentences for both distribution and possession of the same images could violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court imposed a term of 240 months' imprisonment and ordered restitution in the amount of $3,000 to each victim who requested restitution.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court found that the district court did not err in denying Lukassen's motions to suppress evidence and for judgment of acquittal. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lukassen to the maximum statutory sentence and ordering restitution. The court rejected Lukassen's argument that the district court erred in applying the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 (AVAA) instead of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), finding that Lukassen did not show an obvious error that affected his substantial rights. View "U.S. v. Lukassen" on Justia Law

Robert Lance Walker was convicted on five counts related to drug and firearm offenses after a jury trial. He was sentenced to 80 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Walker appealed three of his convictions and his sentence.Prior to the appeal, Walker had argued in the district court that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support three of his convictions. The district court rejected this argument. The three convictions in question related to separate incidents involving possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony, and possession of ammunition after being convicted of a felony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Walker's appeal. The court applied a de novo standard of review, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences. The court found that a reasonable jury could have found Walker guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all three counts. The court noted that possession can be actual or constructive, and that the government had established some nexus between Walker and the contraband in each case.Walker also challenged his sentence, arguing procedural error and substantive unreasonableness. He claimed that the district court relied on a misunderstanding of the Guidelines’ grouping rules and failed to adequately explain its decision to vary upwards. The appellate court found no plain error, stating that the district court provided sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed and did not rely on a misunderstanding of the Guidelines’ grouping rules. The court also found Walker's sentence to be substantively reasonable, noting that the district court had considered the relevant factors and had not committed a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Ryan Fleming was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a high-speed chase in Missouri. The chase began when an officer attempted to stop Fleming's vehicle, which matched the description of a vehicle involved in a shooting in Illinois. Fleming crashed his vehicle, fled on foot, and left a semiautomatic rifle on the ground outside the driver’s door. Fleming challenged the denial of a motion for a new trial and the application of offense-level adjustments under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.The district court denied Fleming's motion for a new trial, which was based on the argument that he did not knowingly possess the semiautomatic rifle. Fleming claimed that the rifle was in the vehicle and fell out when he opened the door after the crash. The court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion, as the jury had considered the officer's testimony alongside the balance of the evidence, including unclear video evidence.At sentencing, the district court applied two enhancements: one for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury during flight, and another for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. Fleming argued that he did not exit his vehicle with the rifle and that the high-speed chase was not separate from his later flight on foot. The court found no clear error in its conclusion that possession or use of the rifle emboldened Fleming to flee on foot, and that the flight on foot was separate in time and different in nature from the preceding high-speed chase.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, rejecting Fleming's factual challenges and finding no clear error in the district court's conclusions. View "United States v. Fleming" on Justia Law

James and Levi Garrett, a father and son farming duo in South Dakota, were found guilty by a jury of making false statements in connection with federal crop insurance. The Garretts had participated in a federal crop insurance program, administrated by Crop Risk Services (CRS) and backed by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). They had obtained insurance for sunflower crops in 2018, and James had obtained insurance for a corn crop in 2019. The Garretts were accused of falsely certifying the number of acres of sunflowers and corn they planted in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and subsequently reporting harvest losses to CRS.The case went to trial in October 2022. The jury heard from several witnesses and examined dozens of exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, James was convicted on two counts of making a false statement in connection with insurance for sunflower and corn crops, and Levi was convicted on one count of making a false statement in connection with insurance for a sunflower crop. The Garretts moved for judgment of acquittal, and in the alternative, a new trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The district court denied their motion.The Garretts appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings and its denial of their post-trial motions. They argued that the district court erred in admitting certain evidence and excluding others, and that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the trial record supported the jury verdict and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the Garretts' post-trial motions. View "United States v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Nguyen Chi Cuong Nmn Huynh, a Vietnamese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted in Iowa for knowingly purchasing or possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in a prohibited sexual act. Following this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security sought his removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arguing that his crime constituted "sexual abuse of a minor," an aggravated felony that warrants removal. An immigration judge found Huynh removable, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Huynh's state crime qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor. The court applied the "categorical approach," examining whether the state statute defining the crime of conviction categorically fits within the generic federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony. The court found that the Iowa statute is broader than the generic federal offense of sexual abuse of a minor.The court held that the conduct criminalized by the Iowa statute, namely, knowingly possessing a prohibited image, falls outside the generic federal offense of sexual abuse of a minor. The court reasoned that none of the definitions of "sexual abuse of a minor" in the INA, reliable dictionaries, or a closely related statute captures simple possession of child pornography. The court also found that the BIA's preferred definition, which requires something more than simple possession of child pornography, does not apply to Huynh's case.The court also considered the Department of Homeland Security's charge that Huynh committed a "crime involving moral turpitude" within five years of his admission to the United States. The court found that the government could not defend the BIA's decision on this charge and granted the government's request for voluntary remand for the BIA to reconsider its decision.In conclusion, the court granted Huynh's petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Huynh v. Garland" on Justia Law

Robert Maloney was convicted for his role in a Minnesota-based drug distribution ring while serving a sentence in a state prison for a terroristic-threatening conviction. He was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Maloney appealed, arguing that the district court had limited cross-examination of the Government’s key witness, denied his request to represent himself during closing argument, denied his request for discovery sanctions based on the Government’s alleged failure to produce audio recordings of phone conversations, and violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.The district court had denied Maloney's request to represent himself during closing arguments, stating that it was too late in the process and it would confuse the jury. The court also denied Maloney's motion for discovery sanctions, concluding that the Government did not violate Rule 16(a) as it had properly disclosed and made available for inspection all the physical evidence, including the audio files, by the deadline. The court also overruled Maloney's objection to the magistrate judge’s order denying his request for sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The court found that any error in limiting the cross-examination of the Government’s key witness was harmless because Maloney had the opportunity to challenge the witness’s credibility in other ways. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying Maloney’s request to represent himself at closing, as the request was untimely and would have disrupted the proceedings. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for discovery sanctions, as the Government had complied with Rule 16. Lastly, the court found no error in the denial of Maloney’s constitutional speedy trial claim. View "United States v. Maloney" on Justia Law

In June 2021, Leonard Haskins was stopped by police in Jonesboro, Arkansas for a traffic violation. Upon approaching the vehicle, officers smelled marijuana, leading to a search of the vehicle. They found a 9mm pistol in the glovebox, various drugs including methamphetamine and ecstasy, digital scales, and a box of 9mm ammunition in a backpack behind the passenger seat. Haskins admitted ownership of the pistol and the contents of the backpack. He was subsequently indicted for four drug and firearm violations, including being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Haskins pleaded guilty to the first count, and the government dismissed the other counts.The Presentence Investigative Report calculated an advisory guidelines range of 51 to 63 months imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court adopted the report without objection and granted Haskins a three-level acceptance reduction, reducing the guidelines range to 46 to 57 months imprisonment. However, the court advised that an upward variance may be appropriate given the nature of the offense and Haskins' criminal history. After extensive argument and allocution, the district court sentenced Haskins to the statutory maximum of 120 months, a 63-month upward variance from the top of the advisory guidelines sentencing range. Haskins appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court noted that it reviews a defendant’s challenge to substantive reasonableness under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the statutory maximum sentence. The court had given the applicable guidelines careful consideration, but concluded that the sentencing factors warranted a substantial upward variance. The court had considered the mitigating factors noted by defense counsel but found them outweighed by the need for specific deterrence, promotion of respect for the law, and protection of the public from further crimes. The appellate court concluded that disagreement with how the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors does not justify reversal. View "United States v. Haskins" on Justia Law

The defendant, Luis Antonio Flores Atilano, was found guilty of being an alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(8), and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. The case arose when law enforcement officers were dispatched to a motel room in South Dakota, where they found Atilano. Upon searching him and his belongings, they discovered three firearms and ammunition. Atilano, who was born in Mexico and entered the U.S. in 2008, claimed that he believed he was lawfully in the U.S. due to paperwork completed by his wife, and that he had the firearms for self-protection due to threats from gang members.The district court held a one-day bench trial, during which the government presented evidence including law enforcement witnesses, Atilano’s recorded interview with law enforcement, and various other exhibits. The court found Atilano guilty of being an alien in possession of three firearms and eight rounds of ammunition. Atilano was subsequently sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Atilano argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he was an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. and that he was acting under duress at the time of the offense. The court, however, affirmed the district court's decision. It found that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude Atilano knew he was in the U.S. unlawfully. The court also rejected Atilano's duress defense, stating that his evidence consisted of a generalized and speculative fear of violence and he failed to show that he had no reasonable legal alternative to committing the crime. View "United States v. Atilano" on Justia Law

Mykel Lee McMillion was charged with knowingly possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The charge stemmed from an incident where police officers responded to a call from a security guard at an apartment complex, who reported that a car was parked in a restricted area and one of the occupants had a gun. The officers arrived and stopped the car, noticing a man in the backseat who matched the description given by the security guard. The man, identified as McMillion, was removed from the car, handcuffed, and searched, leading to the discovery of a concealed handgun.The district court granted McMillion's motion to suppress the evidence of the firearm, reasoning that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the car. The court argued that the time and location of the incident, as well as the report of a man swinging a gun, were irrelevant to the reasonable suspicion analysis, as open carry is legal in Iowa.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the car and conduct a pat-down search for weapons. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the high-crime area, the time of night, the report of a man with a gun, and the behavior of the car's occupants when they became aware of the officers' presence. The court concluded that these factors, taken together, provided sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion, and thus, the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. McMillion" on Justia Law

The case involves Anthony Willis, who was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Willis requested to represent himself in court, a request that was granted by the magistrate judge after a hearing confirmed Willis was competent to do so and had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Willis was warned that his right to self-representation could be revoked if he conducted himself in an obstructive or disruptive manner. Throughout the pretrial proceedings, Willis repeatedly asserted "sovereign citizen" arguments and defenses.The district court revoked Willis's right to represent himself on the morning of the trial after he ignored a warning and again asserted his sovereign citizen theories and defenses. Willis was then represented by standby counsel, and a jury convicted him. Willis appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court erred by revoking his right to represent himself on the morning of the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision to revoke Willis’s right of self-representation de novo. The court concluded that the record at the time the district court revoked Willis’s right to represent himself does not reflect that he had engaged or would engage in the “serious and obstructionist misconduct” that Faretta and controlling precedents require. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Willis" on Justia Law