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

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of supervised release conditions after defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to eliminate the drug testing and substance abuse treatment requirements in order to prevent further drug abuse and to provide for correctional treatment and rehabilitation. The court also held that the district court was well within its discretion to deny defendant's motion to modify two special conditions of supervised release regarding the Hell's Angels special conditions, because they were reasonably related to the sentencing factors, involved no greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary, and were consistent with the Sentencing Commission's pertinent policy statements. View "United States v. Romig" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of petitioner's motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). In this case, the district court determined that petitioner's sentence imposed on his firearm count was based on the Armed Career Criminal Act's unconstitutionally vague residual clause.The court held that the district court's application of the incorrect standard was a legal error that amounted to an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, because the error was a constitutional one, petitioner was entitled to relief because the error was not harmless. Therefore, the sentencing error identified by the district court would prejudice petitioner, entitling him to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and potentially entitling him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The panel remanded for further consideration under Quarles v. U.S., 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019). View "Raymond v. United States" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's resentence imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399, 408 (2018), that defendant's prior Arkansas burglary convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Therefore, defendant had the requisite three or more convictions necessary to qualify as an armed career criminal. The court vacated its prior opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Sims" 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 agreed with the district court that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault in Arkansas was categorically a violent felony under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court also held that defendant's prior South Carolina conviction for pointing a firearm at another person was a violent felony.The court also held that the district court's imposition of a special condition requiring defendant to abstain from alcohol use while undergoing substance abuse treatment was reasonable and within the district court's substantial discretion. In this case, the condition was not a total ban and was aimed at curbing addictive behavior during substance abuse treatment. View "United States v. Hataway" on Justia Law