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

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension obtained a state court warrant to place a GPS tracker on Lopez-Zuniga's car for 60 days. The officer provided an affidavit detailing a drug investigation into Garcia-Jimenez, noting several controlled drug transactions involving Garcia-Jimenez; sometime before a controlled drug transaction at the apartment complex where Garcia-Jimenez was believed to live, the officer saw someone in Lopez-Zuniga's car "drop off an individual who resembled Garcia-Jimenez." Another agent later observed Lopez-Zuniga and Garcia-Jimenez get into the same car at the apartment complex and drive to a restaurant. After 60 days, the agent obtained a second warrant, citing the same information plus the results of tracking the car and of a pen register on Garcia-Jimenez's phone, showing that he and Lopez-Zuniga had 154 "contacts" over about two months. Charged with conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, Lopez-Zuniga successfully moved to suppress evidence obtained from the tracking devices. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained from the first two warrants. The first warrant application was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that belief in its existence would have been entirely unreasonable, and the search is not saved by the good-faith exception. The second warrant application was still insufficient. The court erred in suppressing the fruits of the third and fourth warrant applications, which were supported by information regarding controlled sales to a confidential informant. View "United States v. Lopez-Zuniga" on Justia Law

Escobar, Jackson, and Cruz were convicted of federal crimes related to a methamphetamine distribution operation; Rojas-Andrade and Garcia pleaded guilty. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and their sentences of 137 to 330 months. Evidence seized during a search made pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant was admissible under the good-faith exception, as the totality of the circumstances showed the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable. There was no error in the denial of a motion to suppress wiretap evidence; the wiretap affidavit established that normal investigative techniques had not been successful in exposing the full extent of the drug conspiracy. The district court properly admitted recorded out-of-court statements of co-conspirators and properly imposed a two-level enhancement against Escobar for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with a drug offense under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1). Rojas-Andrade's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied; a misunderstanding of how the guidelines would apply is not a fair and just reason to withdraw a plea. There was no error in denying Jackson's motion to sever conspiracy and possession counts and no error in admitting evidence of Jackson's prior drug convictions as they were not too remote in time and were relevant under Rule 404(b). Garcia did not object to the drug quantity calculation in his PSR or at his sentencing and cannot challenge the quantity on appeal.. View "United States v. Escobar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence on remand for convictions related to his involvement in a fraudulent real estate investment scheme. The court held that the district court's determination that M.U. was a victim under USSG 2B1.1 was not erroneous where M.U. sustained a monetary loss because of defendant's scheme. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 3742(g)(1), and held that the district court's application of the version of the Guidelines in effect at the time of defendant's original sentencing did not violate the Constitution. Finally, defendant's remaining issues regarding the award of restitution and reasonableness of his sentence were not raised in his initial appeal and could not be raised now. View "United States v. Binkholder" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's 175 month sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin. The court held that the district court clearly erred in including 17.5 grams of cocaine base in determining his base offense level, and committed plain error in assigning a criminal history point for an offense committed while he was a minor. The court held that the plain error placed defendant in the wrong criminal history category and affected his substantial rights. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for second degree murder and related charges. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the second degree murder count; the district court did not err by instructing the jury on the elements of second degree murder; the government did not improperly vouch for the credibility of witnesses; although the admission of testimony concerning a sexual encounter that took place in the hours leading up to the murder was prejudicial, the error did not warrant reversal; and the district court did not err in calculating the criminal history points at sentencing. View "United States v. Cottier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's resentence on both an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) conviction and his drug trafficking conviction. The court held that, although the district court committed procedural err by using the 2013 Sentencing Guidelines on resentencing, the error was harmless. In this case, the district court repeatedly stated the sentence would be the same whether he sentenced on the vacated count or both counts. View "United States v. Kemp" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possessing a gun and ammunition as a felon. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's motion to suppress bullets found in his pockets because there was probable cause to arrest him. In this case, defendant matched the material aspects of the shooter's description and a reasonable officer could have concluded that defendant was the shooter. The court also held that defendant's constitutional right to mount a defense was not violated; the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or in its evidentiary rulings; the district court did not err in determining that first-degree aggravated robbery was a violent felony for purposes of sentencing defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act; the district court did not err in treating the robbery and second-degree assault conviction as separate predicate offenses for ACCA purposes; and the district court did not err in counting the felony domestic assault as a violent felony. View "United States v. Perry" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that a county deputy was deliberately indifferent to Jeffry Alan Barton's serious medical needs and that the county jail administrator failed to adequately train or supervise the deputy. Plaintiff also alleged that the county did not adequately train its detention facility workers and that its policies failed to ensure that detainees received adequate medical care.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the deputy where a jury could find that Barton was experiencing a medical need so obvious that a layperson would recognize the need for prompt medical attention, the deputy did not perform the healthcare screening the jail policies required, and it was clearly established at the time that booking Barton into jail would constitute deliberate indifference. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the administrator and held that the administrator did not know that the deputy was inadequately trained or supervised. Finally, the court dismissed the county's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Barton v. Ledbetter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his sentence for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court held that, even assuming petitioner's allegations were true, he failed to state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, to the extent that petitioner argued defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to advise him to testify truthfully, the oath he swore provided him with sufficient notice of this basic obligation. Furthermore, to the extent petitioner challenged defense counsel's failure to warn him about all the possible consequences of his decision to testify, his argument failed because defense counsel did not need to warn him of the speculative risk that false testimony would lead to the unusual chain of events that occurred here. Finally, the plea agreement established that defense counsel's concession of the amount of loss at sentencing was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. View "Adejumo v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit, and use of a facility of interstate commerce in the commission of, murder for hire. The court held that the district court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on entrapment because there was insufficient evidence to raise a jury question that defendant was induced by a government agent. Therefore, the court need not consider whether defendant was predisposed to commit the crime of which he was convicted. View "United States v. Clarett" on Justia Law