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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiring to defraud the United States and willfully aiding and assisting in the filing of a false tax return. The court held that there was probable cause to issue the warrant to search defendant's tax return business. Furthermore, even without the statements that defendant disputes, the affidavit still established probable cause to search the office. In this case, the affidavit provided a detailed description of the unusual pattern of returns and the record supported the magistrate judge's conclusion that, taken together, the circumstances described in the affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause. The court also held that the government's improper argument, which rebutted an argument that was not even raised to a witness, could not have reasonably affected the jury's determination.However, the court vacated defendant's sentence, holding that the government failed to carry its burden of proof and the district court erred by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a), for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity. View "United States v. Keleta" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal agent and damaging an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution for the government's actual loss. In this case, defendant opened fire on a CBP helicopter, injuring a sheriff's deputy and causing extensive damage to the helicopter.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting an extension of time to finally determine the amount of restitution because the extension did not prejudice defendant's ability to challenge the government's restitution claim; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's offense caused the claimed losses; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government substantiated its claim for restitution in the amount of $19,619.45. View "United States v. Clausen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, because the court could not say that counsel acted unreasonably by failing to reach a final plea agreement or by failing to find a way to preserve the plea offer during the mental health evaluation; defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to request a second competency evaluation after a brief period without medication failed, because the Forensic Report contained no conclusion that defendant's legal competency was dependent on a specific medication regime; and the district court did not err by rejecting defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "Love v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for crossing a state line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor under the age of twelve. The court held that a defendant has the requisite intent under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) if engaging in sexual activity with the minor was one of the purposes motivating the defendant to cross state lines, even if the sexual activity is not the sole or dominant purpose for the trip, so long as it is more than incidental.In this case, the admission of text messages defendant had made to a friend allowed a reasonable factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of crossing state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activities with the victim, a child less than twelve years of age. The court explained that the sexual encounters with the child were a motivating factor for defendant's trips across state lines and were not merely incidental. View "United States v. Perkins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury; and discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings where the district court's admission of the challenged 911 call did not violate defendant's confrontation right because the call was not testimonial in nature; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the call over defendant's Federal Rule of Evidence 403 objection; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the probative value of the challenged 911 call was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Furthermore, any prejudice stemming from the reference to the victim owing defendant money for marijuana did not substantially outweigh the value of the testimony as part of the res gestae of the crime.The court also held that there was no error in denying defendant's proposed limiting instruction, and there was no error in imposing two of the supervised release conditions. However, the court vacated the district court's condition prohibiting defendant from consuming alcohol or visiting establishments that primarily serve alcohol. In this case, the court failed to explain its basis for the condition, defendant's offense did not involve alcohol, and the record did not show that he was alcohol or drug dependent. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and sentence of 36 months in prison for assault of a law enforcement officer. The court held that there was a sufficient basis for finding a grade A violation of assault on a law enforcement officer, because the deputy was indisputably performing his official duties at the time of the assault. In this case, when defendant placed his hand on the deputy's service weapon with intent to remove it, defendant took a substantial step toward committing the offense of assault with at least a threat of violence. Therefore, the district court did not err by finding that defendant violated his conditions of supervised release by assaulting the deputy. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit previously affirmed defendant's 600 month sentence after a jury convicted him of sexual exploitation of a minor, exploiting a minor while being required to register as a sex offender, two counts of distributing and receiving child pornography, and five counts of possessing child pornography.In this case, the court denied the petition for panel rehearing, holding that the crux of its harmless error analysis was not that the highest statutory maximum was 40 years if the maximum on Count One was reduced from 50 to 30 years. Therefore, the district court properly determined that the advisory range under USSG 5G1.2(d) greatly exceeded the 600 month sentence it imposed. The court held that any error was harmless because that remained true even if the statutory maximum for Count One was reduced by eliminating the section 2251(e) enhancement. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and his request for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual exploitation of minors and one count of possession of materials involving sexual exploitation of minors.The court held that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to search a cell phone for evidence of sexual abuse. In this case, the sheriff's written affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause and any alleged inefficiencies were either non-existent or harmless because the issuing judge nonetheless had a substantial basis for finding probable cause. The court held that the victim was reliable; the fact that the affidavit does not set forth the sheriff's training and qualifications does not detract from a finding of probable cause; the forensic interviewer's identity and qualifications were irrelevant to the probable cause determination; the issuing judge was permitted to rely on the information contained in certain paragraphs of the affidavit when assessing probable cause; and the facts were sufficient to establish the basis for the victim's knowledge that there was a video of her on defendant's phone at the time of his arrest.The court also held that defendant failed to make the requisite substantial preliminary showing to merit a Franks hearing; the failure to discover evidence on the devices seized from the family residence pursuant to the first search warrant did not make it any less probable that such evidence would be found on the cell phone in defendant's possession; the circumstances and motives surrounding the report to the sheriff had no bearing on the probable cause analysis; and defendant's claim that the sheriff omitted certain information about the witness was rejected. View "United States v. Daigle" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress nearly 2000 grams of heroin found in a rental car defendant was driving. The court held that, even if a strawman eliminated Fourth Amendment standing, the evidence here does not establish a strawman situation and the court's precedent holds that an unauthorized and unlicensed driver may challenge a search of a rental car operated with the renter’s permission. Therefore, defendant had standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.The court also held that, as the encounter with defendant unfolded, officers developed additional evidence indicating deception and criminal conduct. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to seize the vehicle and continue the search. View "United States v. Bettis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography. The district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range, 262 months, but ordered the sentence to run consecutive to the remaining portion of an earlier-imposed, 60-month, revocation-of-supervised-release sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3583(k). After the Supreme Court held that section 3583(k) was unconstitutional in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), the court ordered supplemental briefing.The court held that even if Haymond abrogated the court's double jeopardy precedent, any error in this case was not plain. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a within-guidelines sentence. View "United States v. Watters" on Justia Law