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

The Eighth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court's imposition of special conditions of supervised release prohibiting the consumption of alcohol and setting a curfew. In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering.The court held that the waiver in the plea agreement did not prevent defendant from challenging the special conditions of supervised release. The court also held that the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing the consumption of alcohol condition, because it failed to conduct an individualized inquiry into the circumstances of defendant's alcohol use and drug dependence. The sentencing court also abused its discretion by imposing the curfew, because it failed to make individualized findings. View "United States v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that when the record was inconclusive of what Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) clause was the basis of the sentencing enhancement, the second step is to determine the relevant legal environment at the time of sentencing. In this case, defendant had three predicate offenses at the time of her sentencing because her Iowa robbery conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate under the force clause. Therefore, defendant could not carry her section 2255 burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply the ACCA enhancement. View "Golinveaux v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, invoking Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that defendant had at least three qualifying convictions under current law and resentencing would not change his Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement. Therefore, Johnson error was harmless and he was not entitled to relief under section 2255. View "Garcia-Hernandez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal, holding that he waived his right in his plea agreement to request or receive records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Defendant had pleaded guilty to attempting to arrange, for the purpose of private financial gain, the travel of a person in interstate commerce in order to engage in a commercial sex act with a person under 18 years of age. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant's challenge to his FOIA waiver because the claim was not ripe for review. In this case, defendant has not requested any records from the government under FOIA. View "United States v. Gates" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after she conditionally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the CCSO had an impoundment and inventory policy; the district court did not err in finding that the officer's decision to use his discretion to impound the vehicle was legitimate and reasonable; the district court also did not err in finding the deputies followed the inventory policy without impermissible, unfettered discretion; because the policy required an inventory of the entire vehicle it was reasonable for the officers to open containers believed to have items valued at more than $25; the decision to terminate the inventory also complied with policy; and the officers' suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity did not establish that the sole purpose of the search was investigative. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Defendants Rodriguez and Marcov appealed their sentences and restitution orders imposed by the district court after they pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a scheme to obtain money from generally elderly victims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rodriguez to 79 months in prison after applying an upward departure based on the number of victims; the government met its burden of proving that the correct amount of restitution was awarded, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in electing to make the entire amount jointly and severally attributable to Rodriguez; the government met its burden to prove the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Marcov liable for the full amount of the loss during the time he was active in the criminal enterprise; the district court did not clearly err by finding that Marcov was a supervisor, rather than a minor participant, in the scheme; and Marcov's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not err by allowing the prosecutor to use the phrase "historical conspiracy" during trial. In this case, defendant failed to explain how the prosecutor's use of the phrase created a new crime or invited the jury to find him guilty under a relaxed burden or proof. Because the district court did not err, the court need not consider whether any error was structural. View "United States v. Zarco" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing a petition to vacate petitioner's sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, and denied the Government's motion to remand. The court held that petitioner's Illinois robbery convictions were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act's force clause, and thus petitioner could not prevail on the merits of his claim even if he could show that his original ACCA sentence relied on the residual clause. Furthermore, the court did not read Walker v. United States, 900 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2018), to require a remand that serves no practical purpose, either because the parties concede the sentencing record will shed no light on the question, or because the merits make clear that a movant is not entitled to relief. View "Dembry v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of mail and wire fraud and sentence of 87 months in prison. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his scheme to promote the creation of a Hmong homeland by accepting money from donors.The court held that the district court did not err in preventing defendant from raising a public authority defense at trial because he failed to show even apparent authority. Furthermore, the district court did not err by precluding him from presenting an entrapment by estoppel defense. The court also held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination was not violated; defendant's right to compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment was not violated; and the court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion and explicitly considered sentencing disparities. View "United States v. Seng Xiong" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on the one year statute of limitations period. The court held that it was reasonably debatable whether the holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), regarding the Armed Career Criminal Act extends to the former mandatory guidelines and thus petitioner could not benefit from a renewed limitations period under section 2255(f)(3). In this case, the right petitioner asserted: a right under the Due Process Clause to be sentenced without reference to the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) under the mandatory guidelines, was not dictated by Johnson. View "Mora-Higuera v. United States" on Justia Law