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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he conditionally pleaded guilty to escaping from prison and conspiracy to escape. The court held, after weighing all the relevant factors, that the time lapse between defendant's indictment and guilty plea did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In this case, while the 22 month delay was presumptively prejudicial, the responsibility for the delay and the prejudice factors weighed against defendant.The court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct review. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 36 months in prison and expressly weighed all the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. Therefore, defendant's above-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Saguto" on Justia Law

Petitioner moved to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(a), arguing that several Supreme Court decisions had cast doubt on whether his second degree burglary conviction qualified as a violent felony. Applying de novo review and setting aside the timeliness and other procedural objections that the government has waived, the Eighth Circuit held that petitioner's 1977 conviction for second degree burglary was not a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he was convicted of eight counts of production or attempted production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the audio components of the videos defendant took because they were probative of his intent to produce lascivious footage and whether the videos on their face were of a sexual nature; the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing jury instructions on finding lascivious exhibition; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motions for acquittal and new trial. View "United States v. Petroske" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded this case for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed on March 21, 2019.The Eighth Circuit reaffirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for first degree terroristic threatening under Arkansas law was a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. 924(e) because it has as an element the threatened use of physical force against the person of another. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of failure to truthfully account for and pay over withheld taxes. The court held that any error in calculating loss amount was harmless whether the district court stated that whether it found loss to be $18 million or $4 million would not have an operative effect on the sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not procedurally err by applying a 20-level increase under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(K), which applies if the total loss amount is more than $9.5 million but not more than $25 million.The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level aggravating role enhancement under section 3B1.1(a), because defendant was an organizer or leader of an otherwise extensive criminal scheme; the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) for violating an order excluding defendant from participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs; and the district court did not err by applying a two-level enhancement under section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for conduct constituting sophisticated means. Finally, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him. View "United States v. Belfrey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds. The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress where defendant pointed to nothing in the record that revealed that the officers engaged in objectively unreasonable conduct in approaching his door to knock the second time.The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that he failed to show he had been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated have not been prosecuted for similar conduct. In this case, the policy statements made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued to U.S. Attorneys did not create a policy by which residents of states where marijuana has been legalized are affirmatively treated differently from those of states where it has not. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior Arkansas conviction of aggravated robbery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 5-12-102 was a crime of violence for purposes of sentencing under USSG 2K2.1(a)(1). In this case, Arkansas robbery satisfied both the elements clause and generic robbery in the enumerated offenses clause of USSG 4B1.2, and thus both Arkansas robbery and Arkansas aggravated robbery are crimes of violence. View "United States v. Smith" 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 Missouri conviction for unlawful use of a weapon qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i), because it involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.The court also held that defendant's prior Missouri conviction for first degree assault also qualified as a violent felony and, absent en banc review, the court was bound by United States v. Winston, 845 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Minnis, 872 F.3d 889, 891 (8th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1581 (2018). View "United States v. Pryor" on Justia Law

Defendants Llamas and Parra appealed their convictions for drug trafficking crimes. Parra and another codefendant, Ramirez, appealed their sentences. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of Llamas's guilt was overwhelming and ample evidence also supported Parra's conviction; the district court did not procedurally err in calculating Parra's sentencing guidelines range and did not commit clear error in calculating the drug quantity on the evidence presented where officers seized over 445 grams of cocaine and two kilogram-sized wrappers from the stash house where Parra was staying; and the district court did not clearly err by denying Ramirez a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b) where he was involved in the conspiracy for at least three months and delivered drugs to Llamas on at least one if not two occasions. View "United States v. Ramirez-Maldonado" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his Facebook account. The court held that the affidavit established probable cause that defendant's Facebook account contained evidence of his possession of firearms as an unlawful drug user and the affidavit also contained evidence that defendant was found in a car emitting an odor of marijuana, with real marijuana in the trunk, during the traffic stop on December 7. Therefore, there was a substantial basis to support the issuing judge's determination of probable cause.The court also held that defendant failed to make the requisite showing that the warrant was invalid and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Franks claim without a hearing. Finally, the court held that whether the warrant was executed within 14 days of issuance of the warrant need not be resolved because any violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 would not call for suppressing the evidence, as there was no constitutional infirmity. Even if the warrant was executed one day late, probable cause continued to exist. Therefore, the search and seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Nyah" on Justia Law