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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The court held that the plea waiver that defendant entered into knowingly and voluntarily barred his challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence and whether the district court adequately explained its downward variance. However, in regard to his challenge to the criminal history determinations supporting the application of the career enhancements, the court held that the district court correctly counted each conviction as a predicate offense and properly applied the career offender enhancement. In this case, defendant's 2007 and 2010 convictions were separated by an intervening arrest and thus were properly counted separately. View "United States v. Grady" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his request for de novo resentencing. In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Paragraph 7 of the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. The court held that defendant's claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal fell squarely within the terms of his knowing and voluntary 28 U.S.C. 2255 appeal waiver. View "United States v. Floyd" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he violated one of his supervised release conditions. Reviewing for substantive error, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in mentioning the need to protect the public from further crimes and the need to promote respect for the law as additional reasons supporting its sentence. In this case, the district court used an excluded factor only as an insignificant justification and there was no substantive error. The court also held that there was no error in weighing defendant's record on supervised release, and there was no error in the district court's weighing of the sentencing factors where the conclusion that a sentence of further imprisonment would better reflect his record of intransigence than a sentence of further supervised release was reasonable. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment sentencing defendant to death for his role in murdering an inmate. The court affirmed the district court's decision not to hold an Atkins hearing and not to consider whether defendant satisfied the other factors for intellectual disability, regardless of whether he waived his arguments, because defendant did not show the condition onset before he was 18; there was no Miranda error by admitting evidence at trial of defendant's refusal to submit to an IQ test; there was no error in refusing to instruct the jury on defendant's brain damage mitigating factor; any error in admitting incriminating statements made to the government's psychiatrist was invited and the court will not reverse on that basis; footprint evidence and forensic blood evidence was properly admitted; the district court correctly exercised its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury that defendant's rebuttal evidence was a mitigating factor; and the district court did not err by admitting evidence of the BOP's administrative policies and costs for future dangerousness.The court also held that there was no error in defendant's court-imposed absence during certain jury ministerial matters; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting BOP reports; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting different versions of defendant's prior kidnapping and rape offenses; the district court did not err in submitting future dangerousness to the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion during voir dire on mental health issues; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims regarding lack of individualized voir dire, separate capital sentencing proceedings, standard for weighing factors, and arbitrariness arguments. View "United States v. Coonce" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a no-contact restraining order after defendant failed to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act (SORNA). The court held that there was sufficient evidence on the record to justify the order in light of the long history of violent confrontations and abusive conduct. Furthermore, the order did not impose a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary. Finally, defendant's challenge to the retroactive application of SORNA based on the nondelegation doctrine failed. View "United States v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence gathered incident to a police search of a truck defendant was driving. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to search the truck regardless of the speeding violation and the officer did not impermissibly extend the traffic stop; there was no error in admitting prior bad acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), because the evidence at issue served the legitimate non-propensity purpose of proving knowledge and intent; even if the district court had erred in allowing testimony of the prior bad acts, the error was harmless; and the district court did not err by excluding the bad acts evidence of the passenger because it was too remote in time. View "United States v. Harry" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that the 2015 drug activity was part of the same course of conduct as the 2017 charged conduct; the district court did not clearly err in applying a criminal livelihood enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(15)(E); and the below Guidelines sentence imposed was substantively reasonable where the district court considered defendant's mitigating factors. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to having a prohibited object in prison on two separate occasions. The court held that the district court erred in concluding it lacked authority to run the four-month sentences concurrently. In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to twice violating 18 U.S.C. 1791, which requires an inmate's custodial punishment for contraband possession be imposed "consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation." The court held that the district court's mistaken belief to the contrary constituted a significant procedural error which was not harmless. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Moody" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as moot, because his motion challenged only his term of imprisonment, which has now expired. In this case, petitioner did not dispute the term of supervised release. Because petitioner has obtained all of the relief that he sought, there was no ongoing case or controversy. View "Owen v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for knowingly possessing with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. The court held that there was no error in admitting bad act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), because the evidence of the prior law enforcement in Arizona was relevant to the material issue of knowledge and intent and was similar in kind to the offense in this case. Furthermore, the potential prejudice outweighed its probative value, and the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction.The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in permitting a police officer to testify on drug dealing practices. The government offered the testimony to rebut the "unknown courier defense," and the officer testified that it was highly unlikely a drug dealer/trafficker would entrust someone ignorant of their responsibility for a very valuable shipment. View "United States v. Gutierrez-Ramirez" on Justia Law