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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, and distribution of and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.The court held that there was probable cause to issue a search warrant of the Folsom St. garage; because the camper was not noticeably separate from the garage, it was covered by the search warrant, whether or not it was a vehicle for Fourth Amendment purposes; and, because the April 2 search was legally conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant, the information the police gained from the April 2 search could be relied upon for the April 22 search warrant. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Franks hearing; denying an in camera review of the officer's personnel file; and admitting bad acts evidence. Finally, there was no error in the jury instruction for the lesser included offense of simple possession, and sufficient evidence supported the verdict. View "United States v. Mazzulla" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by applying USSG 5G1.3(d) and concluding that a consecutive sentence was required in this instance. Furthermore, the district court's discussion of the prison system in practical terms was not in error and, even if defendant could show error, his claim failed at step three of plain error review because he failed to show a reasonable probability that but for the error he would have received a more reasonable sentence. In this case, the district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines after thoroughly reviewing defendant's criminal history, mental health, career aspirations, family circumstances, parole options, and need for the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Bonnell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 habeas corpus petition, seeking relief from a mandatory minimum sentence imposed in 2008. The court held that petitioner's 2014 motion was time-barred under section 2255(f)(4). In this case, the issuance of the Commission's 2011 Report was what triggered petitioner's duty to act with diligence, and he failed to do so because he did not file until almost three years later. View "Ingram v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the determination that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he was convicted in Iowa of committing an aggravated felony. Determining that it had jurisdiction, the court held that DHS was correct when it concluded that petitioner's Iowa forgery conviction qualified as an aggravated felony for purposes of section 1227(a)(2)(iii). The court held that, although DHS erred by issuing a Final Administrative Removal Order before petitioner's deadline to respond expired, petitioner failed to show prejudice. In this case, petitioner's state law crime unarguably qualified as an aggravated felony and there was nothing petitioner could have offered that would change the result. View "Salazar v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of five counts of sex trafficking and attempted sex trafficking, and one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, specifically facilitating the promotion and management of a business enterprise involving prostitution.The court held that the search of defendant's cell phone did not violate the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. In this case, defendant was on restrictive supervised release and suspected of engaging in illicit activities, and he was on notice due to the conditions of his supervised release. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury; defendant's waiver to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not involuntary; and defendant's remaining claims of trial error failed View "United States v. Collier" 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 prior convictions for two counts of distributing cocaine base were properly considered separate predicate offenses because they would have been punctuated events within the conspiracy. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant used or possessed the revolver in connection with a crime of violence. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's life sentence for serious drug trafficking and firearms crimes imposed after resentencing, holding that the district court was aware of the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and considered them in imposing the sentence; assuming without deciding that defendant raised a proper objection to the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, there was no procedural error; the district court provided an individualized explanation for defendant's sentence by discussing the staggering magnitude of defendant's crimes and his efforts at rehabilitation; and defendant's within-Guidelines life sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the gravity of defendant's crimes and the need for adequate general deterrence outweighed other factors and warranted a sentence at the top of the range. View "United States v. Duke" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a 24 month supervised release revocation sentence. The court held that the district court did not commit plain procedural error by basing its sentence on a fact not supported by the record. In this case, the district court's finding that defendant committed the crime of viewing child pornography was directly contradicted by the record, and the district court's statement, "crime is committed," viewed in context, either meant "a violation is committed," referring to the admitted supervised release violations, or referred to a string of facts well established by the record -- defendant's initial child pornography offense, his persistent refusal to comply with a legal obligation to participate in and complete sex offender treatment, and his repeated violations of conditions limiting his access to computers and pornographic websites.The court also held that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision, considered defendant's mitigation claims, and did not impose an unduly harsh penalty. Accordingly, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Kocher" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's determination that petitioner was removable. The court held that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his challenge to the determination that his firearm offense was a particularly serious crime; petitioner's argument regarding the purported futility of raising the issue to the BIA was unpersuasive; the IJ acted within its authority by considering the facts and circumstances set forth in the criminal complaint; the unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm offense qualified as a particularly serious crime and barred withholding of removal; and there was no reviewable claim of error in regard to the BIA's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. View "Marambo v. Barr" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of a $5000 restitution order imposed after he pleaded guilty to selling eagle feathers. The Eighth Circuit reversed the order of restitution and modified the judgment to decrease the restitution amount to $130, because, based on the existing record, the actual loss caused by defendant's offense of conviction was limited to the amount of money that the government expended to buy the eagle feathers. The court remanded for the limited purpose of giving the district court the opportunity to consider in the first instance whether, based on the existing record, a fine is warranted in light of the reduced restitution award. View "United States v. Sheldon Tree Top" on Justia Law