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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin and aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts. In this case, ample evidence showed that defendant knowingly and intentionally joined a conspiracy to distribute heroin, and a jury could reasonably infer that defendant knew in advance that he was driving to a drug transaction and intentionally facilitated his associate's transfer of heroin.The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level sentencing increase under USSG 3B1.1(a) for an aggravating role in the offense, and a two-level sentencing increase under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a downward variance. View "United States v. Outlaw" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. In this case, there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between defendant and the firearm found on his plane.The court held that defendant knowingly possessed the gun where recorded jail calls showed that he referenced items that needed to be removed from the plane and where he admitted at trial that the gun looked like the firearm he had previously purchased. Furthermore, defendant had dominion over the plane, the gun was found near personal items that belonged to defendant, and defendant had recently absconded from Tennessee while awaiting trial on a state charge for being a felon in possession of a firearm. View "United States v. Parsons" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracies to import and possess cocaine and attempted possession of the drug. The court also held that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's offense level based on its finding that the quantity of cocaine exceeded five kilograms, and the district court did not clearly err by imposing a sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b), because defendant had acted as a manager or supervisor. View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant Green's motion to suppress evidence, and affirmed Defendants Green and Herbert's sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which Green was riding, because the vehicle was speeding and there were two possible state violations regarding the license plate. Furthermore, the first patdown of Green was justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion and the second frisk was also reasonable in light of the newly discovered firearm. The court also held that the district court did not procedurally err by implying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for the use or possession of a firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a downward variance; the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-level upward departure; and the district court adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decision. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of child obscenity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1) and (d). The court held that the statute of conviction was neither overbroad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The court applied the Miller test and held that the visual depictions defendant possessed were obscene. View "United States v. Buie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine. For the reasons set forth in United States v. Escalante, No. 18-3033, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for retesting of drug quality and quantity and for approval of expenditures.The court also held that the district court did not err in considering defendant's previous conviction for aiding and abetting distribution of methamphetamine as a controlled substance offense for the purposes of the career offender sentencing enhancement. Furthermore, the district court did not err in finding that defendant's prior conviction for accomplice to second-degree battery to be a crime of violence for the purposes of the career offender enhancement. Finally, the district court did not err by denying defendant a minor participant or minimal role reduction, and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that, assuming the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for retesting of drugs and for approval of expenditures without holding an ex parte hearing, the error was not prejudicial because defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that retesting would have aided in his defense and that the denial of retesting resulted in an unfair trial.The court also held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the district court considered and weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by varying downward and imposing the sentence. View "United States v. Escalante" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for receiving and distributing child pornography. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the district court did not err by giving a willful blindness jury instruction; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to vary further downward to the extent advocated by defendant. View "United States v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior convictions, because they were probative on the questions of knowledge and intent; the district court's decision to limit the evidence and to provide a cautionary instruction justified its conclusion that the probative value of the evidence on issues such as knowledge and intent was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing references to the fact that he was serving terms of supervised release and probation at the time of his arrest under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; and the district court did not err by denying a two-level, acceptance-of-responsibility sentence reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a). View "United States v. Monds" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and death sentence for first degree murder. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by trying defendant with his co-defendant; there was no error in submitting the grave-indifference-to human-life jury instruction where nothing in the federal death penalty statute says that the jury can consider a defendant's mental state once; there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that he killed the victim in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; and claims of error regarding mitigating factors and evidentiary errors were rejected. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law