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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by imposing a two-level enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(2) for making a credible threat to use violence against cooperating codefendants. In this case, defendant paid a coconspirator to carry out assaults and demanded her money back when the assaults did not take place, stating that she would find someone else to do the job. View "United States v. Lewis-Zubkin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit enforced an appeal waiver as to a criminal history challenge and vacated a restitution award. In this case, defendant stole a car at gunpoint, killed the dog that was inside the vehicle, and caused a multi-vehicle traffic accident.The court held that defendant's appeal waiver was valid and should be enforced as to his challenge to his criminal history score, because the record demonstrated that defendant entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily; the argument fell within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. However, the court held that defendant's challenge to the ordered restitution fell outside the scope of the appeal waiver; the restitution amount for chiropractic care for one of the victims was not supported by evidence because it was based on an estimate, not the actual loss caused by the injury; as to restitution for the death of the dog, it was properly based on the provisions of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act addressing lost or destroyed property; and there were no other non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. View "United States v. Bagley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for four offenses arising out of a bank robbery. The court held that the affidavit in support of search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that he was the bank robber and that evidence would be found in his motel rooms; the district court did not plainly err in treating defendant's numerous letters to the court as complaints about his lack of access to the evidence rather than as motions for the appointment of new counsel; the district court did not plainly err by admitting an in-court identification by the driver of the van defendant attempted to carjack; the district court did not err by ruling that defendant forfeited his right to testify where defendant persisted in his view that he had the right to make irrelevant and highly inflammatory comments, despite multiple warnings that continuing to do so would cost him his right to testify; and the district court did not err in imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior second-degree domestic assault conviction in Missouri state court was not a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because the statute criminalizes reckless driving, which does not require physical force and thus does not satisfy the force clause. Therefore, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction after he pleaded guilty to unlawful use of identification documents and was sentenced to time served in prison. Defendant alleged that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to adequately warn him about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The court held that the record was sufficient to determine that the ineffective assistance claim was without merit where defense counsel and the district court complied with Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010). Furthermore, defendant already knew from his ICE custody and prior dealings with immigration officials that deportation was likely. View "United States v. Ramirez-Jimenez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 where petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of sexual contact with a child under the age of 16. The court held that petitioner failed to exhaust his remedies in regard to his claim that admission of a video of the victim implicated his rights under the Confrontation Clause; petitioner also failed to raise the Confrontation Clause issue before the district court; and the evidence at trial, including the video, provided an adequate basis for conviction. View "Brende v. Young" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence of 60 months in prison after defendant pleaded guilty in state court to first degree computer child pornography and computer exploitation of a child. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in failing to expressly state the applicable sentencing range where the district court considered related guidelines provisions and the discussions reflected an assessment that the offense warranted revocation and a substantial prison sentence; the statutes under which defendant was convicted provided a sufficient basis for the district court's factual findings; the district court did not plainly err in considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) factors and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Trung Dang" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for drug-related crimes. The court held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence because the facts set forth in the warrant affidavit supported probable cause; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where there was no Speedy Trial Act violation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence a poor quality recording because it was sufficient to provide the jury with the gist of the conversation and there was no plain error in giving the jury the limiting instruction to prevent consideration of inadmissible hearsay; the district court did not err by admitting text messages because the witness qualified as a coconspirator and the messages were not hearsay; and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "United States v. De La Torre" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants after plaintiff's son, Michael, was killed by cardiac arrhythmia after an altercation with officers in the setting of acute methamphetamine intoxication. When officers responded to a domestic disturbance call, they found Michael brutally attacking his girlfriend.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that unsworn statements from paramedics to law enforcement were properly excluded and the district properly disregarded them; Iowa's false statement statute did not implicitly swear a declarant making a statement to law enforcement; there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Michael posed a threat to the safety of the officers and the victim and no competent, admissible evidence rebutted the officers' version of the events; because there was no constitutional violation, the court need not consider whether the rights at issue were clearly established. The court also affirmed the district court's decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Zubrod v. Hoch" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to a police officer in an action brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that a jury could find that a reasonable officer in defendant's position would not have interpreted plaintiff's actions as noncompliance and would have known that plaintiff posed neither an immediate threat to anyone's safety nor a flight risk. The court also held that it was clearly established that an officer could not forcefully take down plaintiff -- who was a nonviolent, nonthreatening misdemeanant who was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee -- in the violent and uncontrolled manner that defendant did. View "Karels v. Storz" on Justia Law