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

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 three prior felony convictions under Arkansas Code 5-64-401 qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Although the government conceded that the version of the Arkansas statute in effect at the time of defendant's convictions was overbroad, the statute was divisible where defendant was convicted under subsection (a), which criminalizes manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with intent to deliver controlled substances. Therefore, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in sentencing defendant under the ACCA. View "United States v. Meux" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 72121(a). After defendant's trial, the Supreme Court decided Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018), which held that, for a section 7212(a) offense, the government must show that there is a nexus between the defendant's conduct and a particular administrative proceeding. The government conceded that, post Marinello, the jury instruction in defendant's trial was erroneous. Nonetheless, the court held that the error was harmless because the evidence supporting the jury's verdict was so overwhelming that no rational jury could find otherwise.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a civil audit; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial. View "United States v. Beckham" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that defendant's prior Illinois conviction for aggravated battery on a public way was a crime of violence. The court applied the categorical approach and held that the Illinois conviction involved causing bodily injury, which has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. Accordingly, the district court correctly calculated defendant's offense level and defendant was a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. View "United States v. Roman" on Justia Law

The Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act is not unconstitutionally vague where the statute's "knowingly or intentionally" scienter requirement alleviates vagueness concerns by narrowing the scope of its prohibition, and limiting prosecutorial discretion.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant Palmer and Leinicke's convictions for several conspiracy crimes related to their participation in a conspiracy to distribute synthetic narcotics. The court declined to apply the categorical approach and held that defendants failed to show that the Act was unconstitutionally vague as applied to them. Finally, the court held that the indictment alleged sufficient facts to show Palmer's knowledge that his conduct violated the Act. View "United States v. Palmer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for transferring obscene materials to a minor, receipt of child pornography, and sexual exploitation of a minor. The court held that the district court did not violate defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by excluding the evidence of the victim's sexual communications with other men; any error in excluding "fantasy source material" was harmless because the exhibit was cumulative; the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting defendant's cross-examination of the victim to 90 minutes; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the victim's age was an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a); the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; and the court rejected defendant's claim that his 264 month sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 144 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by imposing a three-level manager enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b). In this case, defendant provided a drug courier with instructions and logistical support in bringing eight kilograms of methamphetamine from California to Minnesota; when the drugs arrived in Minnesota, defendant instructed a cooperating individual by phone where to bring them and how to deliver them; and defendant recruited his sister to assist in methamphetamine deliveries and payments. View "United States v. Reyes-Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of one count of sexual abuse committed in Indian Country, and one count of attempted witness tampering related to an assault on his girlfriend. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of sexual abuse where the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to infer that defendant put his girlfriend in fear of further physical abuse, that he knew she was in fear, and that she acquiesced to sexual activity because she was in fear of further physical injury. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of witness tampering where sufficient evidence allowed the jury to credit the prosecution's theory that defendant's statements were unlawful attempts to influence or prevent his girlfriend's testimony by threatening, coercing, or persuading her into recanting her story and telling a dishonest and inconsistent account of the assault. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors and held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence submitted at trial. View "United States v. Iu" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of movant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Movant claimed that counsel failed to impeach his accuser's credibility. The court held that counsel's investigation of the witness demonstrated reasonable professional judgment and was therefore not constitutionally deficient. The court rejected movant's claim that counsel's cross-examination of the witness amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and held that counsel did not act unreasonably in concluding that the best way to discredit an alleged sexual assault victim was through scientific evidence and expert testimony rather than through attempted character demolition. Therefore, counsel provided reasonable representation under Strickland v. Washington. The court also held that the district court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "Ford v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release based on the allegation that he committed assault in June 2016. The Eighth Circuit, on de novo review, reversed and held that the admission of three witness interrogations was erroneous where none of the witnesses appeared at the hearing to provide live testimony.Applying the test set out in U.S. v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1086), the court held that the government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that good cause justified limiting defendant's confrontational rights. In this case, the government failed to prove that confrontation would be either impractical or undesirable, and failed to establish the reliability of the evidence the government was offering in place of live testimony. View "United States v. Sutton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's grant of DHS's motion to pretermit petitioner's cancellation of removal application. At issue was whether petitioner's Nebraska criminal attempt conviction qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude. Petitioner's plea arose from his use of a fraudulent social security card to obtain employment.The court held that the criminal impersonation statute underlying petitioner's attempt conviction was a divisible statute. The court applied the modified categorical approach, but was unable to determine which subsection under which petitioner was convicted. The court explained that petitioner had the burden of establishing his eligibility for cancellation of removal, and because he failed to meet his burden, the court upheld the Board's determination that he has not shown such eligibility. View "Pereida v. Barr" on Justia Law