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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of possession of a stolen firearm. The court held that defendant could not establish substantial prejudice and there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to allow an expert witness to testify as to the interstate nexus component of the possession of a stolen firearm charge; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of possessing the Savage rifle; the district court did not err in declining to group counts which did not involve the same victims, acts, or transactions; and the district court did not err in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement based on a specific finding that defendant knowingly swore falsely. View "United States v. Waln" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud after cattle producers who contracted for grazing services during the 2012-2014 seasons received neither those services nor refunds of payments made to defendant and his wife's cattle company.The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy and two substantive fraud counts but vacated the conviction and special assessments on the other five substantive counts. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 related to the 2012 and 2013 grazing season. View "United States v. Hagen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's assault convictions for inflicting an eye and arm injury on his girlfriend and remanded for a new trial. The court held that, when the district court instructed the jury that it was not limited to the arm injury, the district court constructively amended the indictment to include assault counts based on the eye injury. The court found reversible error, because defendant was prejudiced by the error. View "United States v. Lasley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his mother were convicted of charges related to their operation of smoke shops that sold "potpourri," a product containing synthetic marijuana that when consumed sometimes resulted in significant adverse health effects. The district court also imposed a money judgment against defendants, AEP Properties, and Cornerstone Plaza, as well as a fine and restitution against defendants.The Eighth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants, and rejected defendants' numerous contentions of substantive and procedural errors. However, the court reversed the portion of the money judgment jointly and severally pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853 in the amount of $117,653.57. The court held that Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. at 1632–33, precluded the district court from imposing joint and several liability for coconspirators under section 853. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings as to that issue, but affirmed the sentences and convictions in all other respects. View "United States v. Peithman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress. The district found that the encounter with law enforcement was not consensual at its inception and did not become consensual at any time before defendant's arrest. The court held, however, that the evidence in the record established that defendant's encounter with law enforcement was consensual and that he consented to the pat-down search. In this case, the pat-down down search was an objectively reasonable measure to protect officer safety and there was no Fourth Amendment violation. View "United States v. Lozano" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for mail fraud, use of fire and aid and abetting the use of fire to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. In this case, plaintiff's sufficiency arguments amounted to claims that different inferences should have been drawn from the evidence and she supplied various, legitimate facts in support of that claim. The court held, however, that adeptly choosing particular facts from the record and arguing that each, in isolation, did not support the larger inference made by the jury, was not the appropriate standard the court employed on appeal. The court found that the district court painstakingly reviewed the record in light of the elements of the offenses charged and the inferences the jury gleaned from the evidence presented were sufficiently strong to support the guilty verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Galloway" 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 the district court did not commit impermissible double counting by calculating the advisory guideline range by applying a two-level increase under USSG 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) for possessing a stolen firearm and USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an 84 month term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Canamore" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm after a shooting at a fraternity party. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish possession, and the district court did not err in excluding expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. View "United States v. Nickelous" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120 month sentence for bank robbery. The court held that defendant's prior Illinois conviction for attempted robbery qualified as a career offender predicate under the force clause of USSC 4B1.2(a)(1). In Dembry v. United States, No. 17-2849, 2019 WL 436580, the court held that Illinois robbery was a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines, and thus Illinois attempted robbery was also a crime of violence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's finding that petitioner was removeable. The court held that petitioner's 2009 deferred judgment under Iowa Code 907.3(1) was a conviction for immigration purposes under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(48)(A), because he entered a guilty plea and the IJ ordered a restraint on his liberty with deferred judgment and probation. Moreover, the reinstatement of the deferred judgment was not intended to correct a procedural or substantive defect. View "Zazueta v. Barr" on Justia Law