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

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that there was ample evidence to support a finding of possession with intent to distribute, and there was no clear error in applying the four-level increase under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court also held that there was no clear in applying a two-level increase under USSG 3C1.2 for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. View "United States v. Davidson" on Justia Law

An acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and distributing methamphetamine. The court held that the district court applied the proper standard of proof and its finding of drug quantity, including the amount covered by the distribution count that defendant was acquitted on, was adequately supported. Finally, the district court did not err by imposing an enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, because defendant willfully testified falsely on material matters. View "United States v. Ruelas-Carbajal" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for abusive sexual contact. Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he did not fully understand some of its consequences.The court held that defendant was specifically informed of the registration and restitution consequences of his conviction; defendant had fair notice that participating in sex offender treatment could be a condition of his supervised release; defendant's desire to avoid sex offender treatment was not a fair and just ground for withdrawing his plea for another reason: the district court did not order such treatment; and the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because defendant never offered attorney performance as a ground for withdrawing his guilty plea, remand for an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. View "United States v. White Owl" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to cause intentional damage to a protected computer, and to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court appropriately considered defendant's prior Minnesota aggravated robbery convictions as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Furthermore, defendant's Minnesota aiding and abetting second-degree burglary conviction were violent felonies under this circuit's precedents. The court also held that the voluminous and detailed evidence provided a legally sufficient basis for the district court to determine the appropriate amount of restitution. Therefore, the district court did not err by awarding $955,656 in restitution. View "United States v. Gammell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. The court held that defendant waived his argument that the district court erred in applying the sixteen-level increase for the loss amount and the two-level increase for an offense involving sophisticated means, because he stipulated to the adjustments in his plea agreement.The court also held that the district court did not err by denying a two-level reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility, where the district court found that defendant obstructed justice, and applied a two-level increase under USSG 3C1.1. Finally, the district court did not clearly err by declining to deem this an "extraordinary" case that warranted an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Kugmeh" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm while under felony indictment in state court. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court made a procedural error in calculating the advisory sentencing guideline range, holding that the district court did not err by applying a four-level increase under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6) for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. In this case, defendant had committed two separate incidents of domestic assaults against women with whom he had fathered children, and the district court found that the two incidents were an integral part of the course of conduct that related to defendant's unlawful possession of the firearm while under indictment. View "United States v. Paul" on Justia Law