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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court held that there was no error in applying the concurrent sentence doctrine and the district court did not abuse its discretion in not ordering a complete resentencing. In this case, petitioner's career offender sentence on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute was still valid under Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017).The court also held that appellate counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to inform this court on direct appeal that petitioner's sentence might be affected by the Supreme Court’s impending decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court reasoned that the failure of counsel to anticipate a rule of law that has yet to be articulated did not render counsel's performance professionally unreasonable. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding petitioner's plea was properly denied, because a reasonable attorney could have determined that the record, including the government's uncontested evidence and petitioner's own colloquy with the magistrate judge, established an adequate factual basis for petitioner's guilty plea to the money laundering charge. The court also held that petitioner's claim that trial counsel improperly coerced the plea was properly rejected. Finally, the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was not included in the certificate of appealability and the court declined to address it. View "Meza-Lopez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and involvement in a drug distribution operation.In regard to the anticipatory warrant claim, the court held that the district court did not err in finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause and in declining to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the warrant was improperly issued, and the district court did not err in failing to suppress the evidence on the ground that the officers lacked probable cause to execute the warrant. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the charges; the district court did not err in admitting the photographs showing defendant associating with coconspirators, and their introduction did not provide a basis for a new trial; and the district court did not clearly err in denying a two-level minor role reduction, because the evidence presented at trial suggested that defendant provided protection to his codefendant and his drug trafficking operation, as well as engaged in drug purchasing and distribution himself. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of two special conditions of supervised release at sentencing after defendant pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to register as a sex offender. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a special condition requiring defendant to participate in a sex offender treatment program because it was reasonably related to his history and characteristics and it imposed no greater liberty deprivation than was reasonably necessary. Furthermore, the special condition requiring defendant to have prior approval to be in contact with minors, including his own children, was reasonable in light of his prior sex offense conviction involving his own minor daughter. View "United States v. Puckett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that plaintiff failed to show that the officer failed to follow the tow policy in a manner that rendered the tow and subsequent search of the vehicle unreasonable.In this case, it was undisputed that the vehicle required towing and the officer decided he needed to act immediately, reasonably questioning the propriety of releasing the vehicle to defendant's control. Therefore, his actions were consistent with his role as a community caretaker and his decision was largely based on concerns related to the purposes of an impoundment. The court also held that the officer did not violate the "Non-custody Tow" provisions. Because the impoundment was valid and the officer's sole purpose for impounding was not to investigate criminal activity, the corresponding inventory search was reasonable. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant because he took a substantial step to accomplish the offense.The court also held that the district court did not err by rejecting the entrapment defense or by instructing the jury it could not allow the fact that the government used deceptive means during the sting operation to affect its verdict. The court noted that it shared the Seventh Circuit's concern that the instruction could signal indirect judicial approval of the government's management of the investigation. However, in this case, the evidence was so overwhelming that any possible error would be harmless. Although the court did not endorse or encourage giving this instruction. Finally, the court declined to vacate defendant's special conditions on plain error review because they were not obviously impermissible. View "United States v. Strubberg" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing less than 50 grams of methamphetamine. The court held that defendant's 200 month sentence did not come close to violating the gross disproportionality Eighth Amendment standard. In this case, his sentence was within the advisory guidelines range and well within the statutory range of punishment for his offense. Furthermore, an extensive criminal history such as defendant's was a factor justifying the imposition of lengthy sentences. Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant. The court denied as moot the government's motion to dismiss the appeal. View "United States v. Garth" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he was convicted of conspiring to file false tax returns, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, and failing to appear at a pretrial conference. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a three-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b) for his role as a manager or supervisor in a criminal activity involving five or more participants.The court also held that the record supported the district court's imposition of a special condition of supervised release restricting defendant's computer use, because the use of computers and the internet was central to the criminal operation. Furthermore, the computer restriction did not impose an unnecessary deprivation of liberty. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) & cmt. n.9(B) for the use of sophisticated means; the district court adequately explained its within-Guidelines sentence; and there was sufficient evidence to support the loss amounts and restitution. View "United States v. Osman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that the affidavits supporting each of the GPS warrant applications provided probable cause to believe that defendant was involved in methamphetamine trafficking and that the location data from the vehicles would lead to evidence of that trafficking. Furthermore, the applications were not stale. Therefore, the warrants were supported by probable cause and there was no basis for disturbing defendant's convictions or his revocation of supervised release. View "United States v. Petruk" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. The court held that the district court did not erroneously calculate defendant's base offense level where it expressly applied the career offender guidelines in USSG 4B1.1, not the Drug Conversion Tables. The court also held that defendant's below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to 188 months in prison. View "United States v. Nation" on Justia Law