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

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of PCP and life term of imprisonment. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant knew the parcels he sent from California to Kansas City contained cans of PCP, and the evidence also corroborated the testimony of the cooperating witnesses.The court also held that, even if the district court erred by imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, the error was harmless. In this case, the sentencing judge based the sentence on factors independent of the Sentencing Guidelines and thus any miscalculation of defendant's Guidelines sentence was harmless. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior Missouri conviction for second degree robbery constituted a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a), because it requires the use or threatened use of violent force. The court construed "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act and "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines as interchangeable. Likewise, the court also held that defendant's prior conviction for attempted second degree assault constituted a crime of violence under section 4B1.2(a). View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

A prior conviction under Iowa Code 124.401, which makes it unlawful to manufacture, deliver or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance, qualifies as a predicate offense warranting sentence enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the Iowa law of aiding and abetting is substantially equivalent to, not meaningfully broader than, the standard adopted by federal courts in applying 18 U.S.C. 2 and urged by defendants in these appeals. Accordingly, the district courts properly applied the sentencing enhancements in these consolidated cases. View "United States v. Kyle Boleyn" on Justia Law

The government charged defendant with one count of involuntary manslaughter committed within Indian Country after her newborn baby died due to combined drug toxicity. The district court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the charged offense did not cover her or her conduct.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the baby falls within the class of victims protected by 18 U.S.C. 1112 regardless of whether he was or was not a human being when he sustained injuries in utero. In this case, although the plain language of section 1112 and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act plainly encompasses defendant and her conduct, the district court erroneously utilized a separate, unrelated, and uncharged statutory provision to exclude defendant's conduct from section 1112. The court remanded with directions to reinstate the indictment and noted that the district court may take up an as-applied due process challenge it did not reach. View "United States v. Flute" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to passing counterfeit securities. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in determining the intended-loss calculation and in determining the amount of restitution. In this case, trying to rent a jet without intending to pay for it satisfied the definition of an intended loss, and the district court reasonably estimated the victims' ultimate losses. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after conditionally pleading guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the officer's mistaken belief that the red vehicle at issue was stolen based upon his misreading of the "hot sheets" was objectively reasonable. The court also held that the officers did not impermissibly extend the stop, and thus the observation of narcotics and the firearm, coupled with the inability to identify the vehicle's owner, provided the officers with probable cause to tow the vehicle and perform an inventory search. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the officers had a legally permissible basis to tow and search the vehicle, revealing the firearm that gave rise to the charge against defendant. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The court affirmed and held that, whether it followed the line of authority that categorizes a district court's consideration of an allegedly improper or irrelevant factor as a procedural error, or consider defendant's argument as a substantive challenge, there was no sentencing error. In this case, the district court did not base its sentencing decision on the contested allegations of the PSR, but on its decision to impose an upward variance on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Therefore, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ayres" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his firearm conviction. The court held that defendant's underlying offense of armed robbery involving controlled substances categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(3)(A) even when it is committed by means of intimidation. Therefore, the court held that petitioner's underlying offense categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A), and his conviction and sentence under section 924(c)(1)(A) are not unconstitutional. Furthermore, because section 924(c)(3)(A) applies in this case, the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Davis does not afford petitioner the relief he seeks. View "Kidd v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court's determination that defendant had not been complete and truthful in his safety-valve interview was not clearly erroneous. In this case, while the district court did not rely heavily on some of the minor inconsistencies between the interviews, it did emphasize some of the more significant aspects of defendant's changing stories. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by denying safety valve relief. View "United States v. Cervantes" on Justia Law