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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not err by determining that defendant's five convictions for selling cocaine base were serious drug convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); an offer to sell in Missouri is categorically an offense involving distribution of a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(A)(ii); and defendant's contention that the district court impermissibly found that at least three of his Missouri offenses were committed on occasions different from one another was foreclosed by circuit precedents. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he was found guilty of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, because his prior Missouri conviction for second degree robbery qualified as a violent felony under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B). View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion seeking discharge from a civil commitment in a proceeding under 18 U.S.C. 4247(h). The court held that the specific requirements of section 4247(h) control over the general statutory right to proceed pro se. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion. The court also held that, under the well-established rule of statutory interpretation that specific statutory language controls over more general provisions, the general rule of 28 U.S.C. 1654 must give way to the specific requirement of section 4247(h) that motions for release from civil commitment be filed by an attorney or legal guardian for the committed person. View "United States v. O'Laughlin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's argument that his prior drug conspiracy convictions did not fall within the definition of a "controlled substance offense" was foreclosed by United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc).The court reviewed defendant's alternative claim, that under the categorical approach 21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy is broader than generic conspiracy because it does not require an overt act, for plain error. Because this court has not yet considered the issue, defendant failed to show any error that was clear or obvious under current law. View "United States v. Merritt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. Deciding not to enforce the ambiguous appeal waiver, the court held that the district court did not plainly err by sentencing defendant to consecutive sentences of 360 months' imprisonment on each count, for a total custodial sentence of 720 months. The court also held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable and did not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity. In this case, the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in calculating the sentence and the district court distinguished defendant's case from the ones he cited. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a bag of drugs found at defendant's feet after he pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute five or more grams of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress, because the officers were talking to another individual and their act of shining a flashlight to illuminate defendant in the darkness was not a coercive act that communicated an official order to stop or comply.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a subpoena duces tecum, because defendant failed to identify the specific reports he sought in his motion. Finally, the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges, holding that there was no error in admitting texts and photos taken from defendant's phone. In this case, the evidence was authenticated and did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. Even if the screenshot of the text-message conversation at issue contained inadmissible hearsay, admitting them was harmless. Finally, the court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), because he expressed his opposition to his attorney's assertion of guilt by pleading not guilty to both counts and taking his case to trial.The court held, however, that defendant's admissions were consistent with his attorney's statements to the jury that he was guilty of the possession with intent to distribute count. Furthermore, the record did not reflect that defendant made any express statements of his will to maintain his innocence. Therefore, defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel's concession of guilt violated his autonomy to decide the objective of his defense. The court noted that defendant may bring his Sixth Amendment claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court also held that there was no error in the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 based on obstruction of justice. Finally, the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in determining defendant's sentence, and his within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Felicianosoto" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant safety-valve relief after concluding that he had not truthfully provided all information and evidence he had concerning the drug-related offense. In this case, the government's evidence suggested that defendant had a larger role in the drug conspiracy than he admitted to, and he failed to establish that he did in fact provide complete information. View "United States v. Valquier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's successive motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that petitioner did not meet the requirements of section 2255(h)(2) for filing a successive motion, because Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015), did not undermine the court's conclusion on direct appeal that three of petitioner's prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under the force clause or the enumerated offenses clause. That Johnson might have eliminated a fourth conviction, or an unnecessary alternative ground for counting the three qualifying convictions, did not entitle petitioner to pursue a successive motion. The court therefore held that, without showing the retroactive decision in Johnson justified relief, petitioner could not challenge his sentence based on intervening decisions with not retroactive effect. View "Forrest v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bank robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of brandishing a firearm during those crimes of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial given the attenuation between the prospective juror's remarks and defendant, and the deference due to the district court's assessment of the circumstances.The court also held that an officer's nonresponsive answer, stating that defendant refused to speak with police at the scene of the arrest, violated the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, any violation of the rule in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), did not affect defendant's substantial rights. Finally, the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance. View "United States v. Pope" on Justia Law