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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of Receipt of Images Depicting the Sexual Exploitation of Minors. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial because there was no error in allowing the government's forensic expert to testify as to three issues; by allowing the government's expert to testify regarding the age of the child depicted in the image; and by refusing to replace a juror who cried when images of child pornography were published at trial during the government's case-in-chief. View "United States v. Chavez Spotted Horse" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 34 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and took into consideration the sole mitigating factor presented by defendant—that he possessed the firearm for a good reason. In this case, the court observed that defendant's conduct was repeated conduct and defendant had previously spent time in prison for committing the instant offense, and that he was not deterred from committing it again. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 41 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, and fraudulent use of access devices. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a two-level sophisticated-means enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); the sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court did not err, let alone plainly err, when it considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the district court adequately explained the sentence; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting and in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for crimes related to his role in a bank robbery. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting three Facebook videos into evidence where the videos were sent to defendant's friends in the days leading up to the robbery. In this case, the videos constituted intrinsic evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the videos based on the high probative value in comparison to the potential prejudice. The court also held that the district court gave the precise jury instruction that defendant requested and defendant never objected to it. Therefore, defendant's challenge to the instructions was unreviewable on appeal. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 360 month sentence for kidnapping. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing the cross reference to attempted murder and the district court's application of USSG 2A2.1(a)(1) did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights; the district court did not clearly err by determining that the victim suffered a life threatening bodily injury for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 1B1.1 cmt.n1(J)(2016); the district court did not engage in impermissible double-counting and did not err by imposing a four-level enhancement for a life-threatening injury under USSG 2A2.1(b)(1)(A); and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where a sentence at the bottom of the Advisory Guidelines range was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the kidnapping and defendant's long history of controlling and abusive behavior towards women. Although defendant's age and condition arguably may have justified a departure or variance, the district court acted within its discretion when it decided to impose a Guidelines-range sentence. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second motion to vacate his mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court held that the new rule in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), had no nexus to this claim. Furthermore, neither Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), announced a new rule of law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Finally, in denying petitioner's first 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, the district court held that his three class C felony burglary convictions fell within the ACCA's enumerated offenses clause and thus he could not raise these claims again. View "Winarske v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting second degree murder. The Eighth Circuit held that the government did not breach the plea agreement when it recommended a sentence within the agreed-upon range. Furthermore, the government's statement that it adopted the amended presentence investigation report that included an enhancement for obstruction of justice did not breach the plea agreement. The court held that defendant's remaining claims fell within the scope of the appeal waiver. Finally, even if the court considered the merits of defendant's alleged procedural and substantive sentencing errors, the court would affirm the district court's judgment. In this case, the district court considered the sentencing factors, issued a within-Guidelines sentence that was presumptively reasonable, and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. St. Pierre" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence from wiretaps after he pleaded guilty to drug-related offenses. The court held that the district court did not err in granting the wiretap applications without preauthorization from the Nebraska Attorney General. The court also held that, under Nebraska law, wiretap applications do not need to be sworn under oath before submission to the Nebraska Attorney General and there was no requirement that wiretap applications be submitted to the Attorney General by the principal county attorney.The court also held that the district court did not err in finding probable cause to wiretap defendant's co-conspirators; the district court did not err in finding the probable-cause information was not stale, because the criminal activity was continuous and ongoing; and the district court did not err in finding the wiretaps were necessary, and defendant had actual notice of the wiretaps within the 90-day period set out in Nebraska law. View "United States v. Terrell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition as a previously convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior Missouri drug convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act and he therefore had three prior qualifying convictions to be sentenced as an armed career criminal. The court explained that United States v. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012), held that a knowing offer to sell drugs in Minnesota is a crime "involving" the distribution of drugs, because it is "related to or connected with" drug distribution. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of the concurrent sentence doctrine to petitioner and denial of 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief. The court held that sentencing petitioner as an armed career criminal on the firearm count had no impact on his advisory guidelines range for the drug trafficking charge, and his 220 month sentence was 40 months above the Armed Career Criminal Act's mandatory 180-month minimum. In this case, petitioner did not appeal his convictions and sentences for concurrent 220 month prison terms, and the district court did not err in denying the successive habeas motion under the concurrent sentence doctrine. Furthermore, the court noted that the collateral consequences petitioner claimed was more than highly speculative where they were entirely within his control to avoid. View "Eason v. United States" on Justia Law