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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to strike the government's 21 U.S.C. 851 notice of sentencing enhancement alleged in the indictment. The court held that defendant's California conviction qualifies as a "felony drug offense" notwithstanding the fact that it was later redesignated as a misdemeanor. The court reasoned that, because defendant was convicted of a felony and sentenced under California law in 2008, his California conviction was "final" at the time of his federal drug offense in 2017. To the extent defendant raised other arguments as to why the California conviction may not serve as a predicate offense, the court held that those arguments were foreclosed by the court's reliance on the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016). View "United States v. Santillan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of identification documents. In this case, ICE officers determined that defendant was not the suspect that they were in fact looking for, but the officers learned during an investigatory stop that defendant had been previously charged with an immigration offense.The court held that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the initial suspect had committed a crime and that the suspect lived at the residence where defendant was arrested because the suspect listed the address as his residence and had a car registered to the address. Furthermore, it was not unreasonable for the officer to mistake defendant for the actual suspect in light of the circumstances. Therefore, the officer's mistake was not objectively unreasonable and he had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. View "United States v. Lopez-Tubac" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 600 months in prison imposed after he was convicted of eight child pornography offenses and one count of sexually exploiting a child while required to register as a sex offender. The court held that any error in determining that defendant's Nebraska conviction related to the possession of child pornography was a predicate offense for application of 18 U.S.C. 2551(a) was harmless error. The court also held that defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor and for possession of the images did not constitute double jeopardy under the Blockberger test or the merged offenses doctrine. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that Application Note 8 to USSG 1B1.3 foreclosed petitioner's argument that his 2008 and 2009 Iowa drug convictions were relevant conduct to the federal offense of conviction. The court explained that Application Note 8 plainly provides that prior criminal conduct for which a sentence was imposed before the conduct charged in the indictment is not relevant conduct. The court need not determine whether the district court erred in finding that it was unclear whether petitioner's proffer interview supported his argument. View "Keys v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the revocation judge's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition, holding that petitioner failed to show that he was unable to pursue his desired relief by filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition with the sentencing judge. In this case, while petitioner's decision to bring his claim under section 2241 rather than section 2255 theoretically allowed him to litigate in his preferred forum, it was in fact an ethereal election because it did not render section 2255 inadequate or ineffective. Therefore, the revocation judge lacked jurisdiction over his petition. View "Lee v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated a prior opinion, and granted a petition for rehearing to clarify its decision in light of this court's recent holdings in Kelsay v. Ernst, 933 F.3d 975 (8thCir. 2019) (en banc), and Rudley v. Little Rock Police Dep't, 935 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2019). The court issued a new, clarifying analysis on the excessive force and qualified immunity claims involving Defendant Officer Stair.Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages, alleging that the city, the police department, and the officer violated plaintiff's constitutuional rights when he was detained and tased as part of an arrest. The court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence to suggest that the City created, adopted, or supported any policy or custom that would demonstrate municipal liability. Therefore, the City was entitled to summary judgment. As to the officer, the court held that summary judgment in favor of the officer on plaintiff's First Amendment claim was appropriate where it did not necessarily follow that plaintiff's arrest was grounded in an effort by the officer to restrain plaintiff's right to express himself. The court also held that the officer's first and third tasings of plaintiff was objectively reasonable. However, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the second tasing amounted to excessive force in light of the video footage depicting the quick succession of the tasings, and the issue of whether plaintiff was resisting the officers or posing a threat at the time. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Jackson v. Stair" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found inside of a rental car in which defendant was the passenger. The court held that the officer acted on reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and defendant was not unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the officer found a loaded weapon in the car, and thus had probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of criminal activity. Therefore, defendant had no standing to challenge the pretextual inventory search. Furthermore, because defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as a passenger, he could not assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the vehicle search. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act, holding that section 404 of the Act does not require a hearing on the motion. Therefore, the district court can conduct a complete review without a hearing, as the district court did in this case. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Rather, the district court considered defendant's post sentence rehabilitation and arguments for a sentence reduction, and had a reasoned basis for rejecting them. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 223 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine after having been previously convicted of a felony drug offense. The court held that the district court expressly considered defendant's difficult upbringing, but refused to attribute his extensive criminal history solely to his harsh rearing experiences. In this case, the district court explained that defendant's criminal history outweighed his mistreatment. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance. View "United States v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine and 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for assault with intent to inflict serious injury in violation of Iowa Code 708.2(1) and 903.1(2) qualified as a crime of violence under the career-offender enhancement, because the crime necessarily involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. View "United States v. Quigley" on Justia Law