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

This case involves a large methamphetamine conspiracy centered in Kansas City, Missouri. Trevor Scott Sparks, the alleged leader, was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and firearms-related offenses. Markus Michael A. Patterson and Gerald L. Ginnings pled guilty to similar charges. They appealed various issues, including evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, Sentencing Guidelines calculations, and the reasonableness of their sentences.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri handled the initial proceedings. Sparks was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two concurrent life terms plus additional imprisonment. Patterson and Ginnings pled guilty and received sentences of 560 months and 520 months, respectively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Sparks raised five issues on appeal, including the admission of evidence related to uncharged murders, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, application of a Sentencing Guidelines cross-reference for first-degree murder, and the reasonableness of his life sentence. The court found that the evidence of the murders was intrinsic to the conspiracy and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Sparks' convictions and upheld the jury instructions given. The application of the murder cross-reference was deemed appropriate based on Sparks' involvement in the murders. The court also found Sparks' life sentence reasonable given his leadership role and violent conduct.Patterson challenged the application of the murder cross-reference and the drug quantity calculation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the cross-reference and upheld the drug quantity calculation. Ginnings argued that the district court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court found no error in the district court's reliance on trial evidence and upheld the sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in each case. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Najawaun Quinn, Dimetri Smith, and three others were charged with 18 counts of racketeering and firearm offenses related to their association with the Savage Life Boys Gang (SLB Gang) in Davenport, Iowa. The other three defendants pleaded guilty. After a trial, Quinn was found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. Smith was found guilty of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and two counts of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The district court denied their motions for judgment of acquittal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that the SLB Gang constituted an "enterprise" under the racketeering statute, as it had a common purpose, relationships among members, and sufficient longevity. The court also found that Quinn and Smith committed the violent assaults to maintain or increase their positions within the gang. The court rejected the argument that the SLB Gang lacked the necessary structure to be considered an enterprise.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the SLB Gang was an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity and that Quinn and Smith committed the violent assaults to maintain or increase their positions within the gang. The court also upheld the jury instructions and sentencing decisions, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error. The court concluded that the district court's factual determinations were supported by the evidence and that the defendants were not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Quinn" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Mexico, Lilia Salinas, who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007, was convicted in North Dakota state court in 2011 for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. She received a suspended sentence of 360 days’ imprisonment. In 2021, she was convicted again in North Dakota state court for two counts of aggravated assault of a victim under 12 years of age, receiving a 10-year sentence with one year suspended. Based on these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her in 2022, charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for a controlled substance violation and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse.An immigration judge (IJ) found Salinas removable under both charges, applying the categorical approach to determine that her marijuana conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense under federal law. The IJ compared the North Dakota definition of marijuana at the time of her conviction with the federal definition in effect at that time, concluding they were substantially similar. The IJ also pretermitted her application for cancellation of removal, as her 2011 conviction stopped the clock on her period of continuous residence, making her ineligible for relief.Salinas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the IJ should have compared the state statute to the federal definition in effect at the time of her removal proceedings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the appropriate comparison was with the federal definition at the time of conviction and that the state and federal definitions were a categorical match.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court held that the proper comparison for determining removability under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is between the state statute at the time of conviction and the federal Controlled Substances Act in effect at that time. The court also rejected Salinas’s argument that the North Dakota definition of marijuana was overbroad compared to the federal definition. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Salinas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Roberto Williams was convicted by a jury of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. The charges stemmed from two separate incidents. In the first incident, on July 31, 2020, St. Cloud police officers stopped a car in which Williams was a passenger and found a handgun in the glove compartment. In the second incident, on November 13, 2020, after a fatal shooting involving Williams's fiancée's son, police found two firearms in a garbage bin outside Williams's home.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Williams's pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained during the July 31 stop and from a warrant search of his cell phone. The court also denied his motion to exclude evidence of five prior Illinois convictions, which Williams argued were invalid and could not serve as predicates for the felon-in-possession charges. Williams was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on each count.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Williams's motion to suppress evidence from the July 31 stop, concluding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress evidence from the cell phone search, applying the Leon good faith exception. Additionally, the court rejected Williams's argument that his prior Illinois convictions were invalid, holding that his motion was an impermissible collateral attack on the state convictions, which had not been vacated by an Illinois court.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining Williams's convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Dontavius R. Sharkey was convicted by a jury of two counts of felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of a straw-purchasing conspiracy. The district court sentenced him to 360 months in prison. Sharkey appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutional and that the district court improperly used acquitted conduct to enhance his sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found Sharkey's acquitted conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence and used it to increase his Guidelines range. Sharkey's arguments against the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the use of acquitted conduct were rejected based on existing precedent. The district court also applied enhancements for using a firearm in connection with another felony and for his role as an organizer in the criminal activity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Sharkey's constitutional challenges were foreclosed by precedent, specifically citing United States v. Jackson. The court also upheld the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing, referencing United States v. Watts and United States v. Bullock. Additionally, the court found no procedural error in the application of the Guidelines enhancements and determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. The court concluded that the district court properly considered the relevant factors and did not give undue weight to any improper or irrelevant factors. View "United States v. Sharkey" on Justia Law

Robert Peck, Jr. entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss one of the charges. The case arose from an investigation in July 2020, where officers, acting on anonymous tips, used a drug-sniffing dog to detect drugs outside Peck's apartment. Based on the dog's alert, they obtained a warrant and found drugs and firearms in Peck's apartment.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Peck's motions to suppress the evidence obtained from his apartment and cell phone, as well as his motion to dismiss the firearm possession charge. The court ruled that the officers did not trespass on Peck's curtilage and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The court also found that applying the firearm possession statute to Peck did not violate the Second Amendment, despite his prior nonviolent drug conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the good-faith exception applied, as the officers reasonably relied on existing precedent when using the drug-sniffing dog. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the firearm possession statute as applied to Peck, citing precedent that supports prohibiting firearm possession by individuals with felony convictions, regardless of the nature of the prior offense. View "United States v. Peck" on Justia Law

Joe May was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of the Anti-Kickback statute, among other charges, related to defrauding TRICARE. May, a medical doctor, was recruited to sign prescriptions for compounded drugs without evaluating patients. He signed 226 prescriptions, mostly without determining medical necessity. May received cash payments for his participation. When investigated, May created false medical records and lied to the FBI.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas convicted May on all counts and sentenced him to 102 months imprisonment, ordering restitution of over $4.6 million. May appealed, challenging the admission of business records, limitations on cross-examination, jury instructions, the government's closing argument, and the sufficiency of evidence for certain charges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting business records or limiting cross-examination. The court upheld the jury instructions and found no error in the government's closing argument. The court determined there was sufficient evidence for the conspiracy, mail fraud, and kickback charges. However, the court found plain error in one count of aggravated identity theft related to Perry Patterson, as the jury was not instructed on the correct underlying offense.The Eighth Circuit reversed the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count related to Patterson, remanded to vacate the special assessment for that count, and affirmed all other aspects of the case. View "United States v. May" on Justia Law

Mohammad Al Sharairei and his wife owned and operated Puff N Stuff II, a shop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which sold various products, including synthetic cannabinoids labeled as "potpourri" and "incense." In May 2013, law enforcement conducted an undercover purchase at the store, and subsequent testing revealed the presence of synthetic cannabinoids. A search warrant executed in June 2013 led to the seizure of products and sales records indicating that synthetic cannabinoids constituted a significant portion of the store's revenue. Al Sharairei admitted to being a major seller of these products and described methods to avoid law enforcement detection.The government charged Al Sharairei with maintaining a premises for the distribution of controlled substance analogues and conspiracy to distribute controlled substance analogues. After failing to appear for a scheduled guilty plea hearing, Al Sharairei absconded and was later extradited from Brazil. In September 2022, a jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison and ordered a forfeiture of $425,000.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Al Sharairei challenged the district court's willful blindness instruction, the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of his motion for a new trial, the forfeiture order, and the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit held that the willful blindness instruction was appropriate, as the evidence supported an inference that Al Sharairei was aware of the high probability that the substances were controlled and took deliberate actions to avoid learning the facts. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and upheld the district court's decisions on the forfeiture order and sentencing enhancements. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "United States v. Sharairei" on Justia Law

Jaylyn McGhee was involved in a shooting outside his home in Davenport, Iowa, where his six-year-old son was injured. Law enforcement responded to the scene and found shell casings, suspected narcotics, and money outside McGhee's house. Officers observed blood spatter and a powdery substance on the deck and stairs leading to a side door of the house. Based on these observations, they obtained a search warrant and found drugs and firearms inside McGhee's home. McGhee was charged with drug and firearm offenses, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied McGhee's motion to suppress the evidence found in his home, ruling that the officers' observations from the front yard were lawful and that exigent circumstances justified their entry into the side yard. The court also applied a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with drug trafficking, based on evidence from controlled buys and the proximity of the drugs and firearms found in McGhee's home.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the officers' initial observations were lawful and that exigent circumstances justified their further actions. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement, finding that the district court did not err in relying on the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines and that the evidence supported the connection between the firearms and drug trafficking. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. McGhee" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2021, the Southeast Iowa Narcotics Task Force (SEINT) received tips about heroin distribution in Burlington, Iowa. Following a search warrant at Michael Brown’s home, detectives found evidence of narcotics distribution. Subsequent investigations and controlled buys revealed that Gilbert Ellis, Christopher Ellis, and Joshua Townsen were involved in distributing methamphetamine and heroin. Gilbert, who used a wheelchair, directed others in drug transactions. Christopher and Townsen also participated in the distribution network, with Townsen procuring methamphetamine for Gilbert.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa handled the initial proceedings. Gilbert pled guilty to multiple counts of drug distribution and conspiracy without a plea agreement. The court applied a “manager or supervisor” enhancement to his sentence, resulting in 240 months’ imprisonment. Christopher, classified as a career offender, received 200 months’ imprisonment. Townsen, deemed ineligible for safety-valve relief due to a prior burglary conviction, was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgments. It found no clear error in applying the “manager or supervisor” enhancement to Gilbert’s sentence, as evidence showed he directed drug transactions. The court also upheld the career-offender enhancement for Christopher, rejecting his argument that his prior marijuana conviction did not qualify as a controlled substance offense. Finally, the court confirmed Townsen’s ineligibility for safety-valve relief, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer v. United States. The appellate court concluded that the sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ellis" on Justia Law