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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of supervised release conditions. The court held that, even though defendant completed his revocation sentence, the cost of his GPS monitoring was a concrete and continuing injury and the appeal was not moot. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in imposing supervised released conditions where the restrictions placed upon defendant's possession of sexually explicit material and his unauthorized use of computers were not unreasonable, because they were related to, and in fact a direct consequence of, the circumstances surrounding his underlying conviction for possession and distribution of child pornography, and involved no greater deprivation than necessary. Furthermore, the government presented sufficient evidence that defendant violated those terms by possessing what the district court found to be a sexually explicit book called manga, and by accessing a computer without his probation officer's consent. View "United States v. Gatton" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of bombing a doctor, the United States filed two civil forfeiture actions against weapons seized from defendant during the criminal investigation. On appeal, defendant challenged an order of forfeiture of an unregistered shotgun, and defendant and his wife challenged the forfeiture of 93 National Firearms Act regulated weapons.The Eighth Circuit declined to overturn either order based on defendant's allegations of fraud and improper limitations on discovery. The court held that the district court did not err in granting forfeiture of the shotgun where defendant's acquittal of illegal possession of the shotgun in his criminal trial did not bar the district court from rejecting his affirmative defense and ordering forfeiture of the shotgun in this civil proceeding. The court also held that the district court had jurisdiction to dispose of 93 weapons seized from defendant as he could not lawfully possess them as a convicted felon. Furthermore, the district court did not err in ordering the proceeds from the sale of the weapons to be given to the victim where defendant's wife could not rely on the law of Arkansas marital property to establish an ownership interest in the 93 weapons and the district court did not err in relying on the Arkansas civil judgment in granting defendant's interest in the proceeds to the victim. View "United States v. Mann" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the Iowa court minutes of evidence were not permissible Shepard documents if the defendant has not confirmed their accuracy in a plea agreement or during plea colloquy. In this case, the district court improperly used them to apply the modified categorical approach to determine whether defendant had the three necessary predicate convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Dittmar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, one count of interstate transportation of an individual to engage in prostitution, one count of use of facilities in interstate commerce with intent to aid an enterprise involving prostitution, and one count of use of facilities in interstate commerce with intent to distribute proceeds from an enterprise involving prostitution.The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to exclude evidence where the warrant was not so obviously deficient that any reasonable officer would have known that it was constitutionally fatal and the application of the exclusionary rule would not result in appreciable deterrence of police misconduct; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a detective's expert testimony; there was no impropriety in the district court's statements to the jurors and the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court had declared a mistrial and then improperly allowed the jury to continue deliberations; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial; and defendant's challenges to his sentence were rejected. View "United States v. Szczerba" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court held that any error the prosecutor committed by discussing his views on shoes as dangerous weapons was not plain; there was sufficient evidence to find that the shoes defendant and her daughter wore were dangerous weapons; defendant did not raise her claim that two crimes of conviction were multiplicitous before trial and the claim was untimely; there was no plain error in the district court's jury instruction on aiding and abetting and the evidence was sufficient to show that she actually aided and abetted her daughter; and defendant abandoned the intoxication defense and withdrew the corresponding jury instruction. View "United States v. Bravebull" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 188 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for Arkansas first-degree terroristic threatening was a violent felony for Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing, where defendant threatened to kill his girlfriend while holding a knife to her throat. The court also held that the district court properly counted defendant's prior second degree battery conviction as a violent felony under Arkansas law. Therefore, defendant had the predicate violent felonies to be sentenced as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release after finding that defendant violated many conditions, including the use of controlled substances. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted transcripts of an expert witness from two prior Northern Iowa cases where the expert testified in detail about the reliability and acceptance of sweat patch testing was harmless. The evidence was cumulative and unnecessary in light of the other evidence in the case. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant Homedew's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and Defendant Carr's sentence for possession of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err by denying Homedew's motion to suppress evidence where it found that Homedew voluntarily consented to a search of his backpack; Homedew's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was premature in this direct appeal; and Homedew's additional pro se arguments were without merit. The court also held that Carr's 190 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Carr" on Justia Law

Factors that have already been taken into account in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can nevertheless form the basis of a variance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's resentence on remand from the district court. Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison. The court held that the district court did not err by applying an upward variance of 83 months from the high end of the Sentencing Range. The sentence in this case was supported by factors not accounted for, either in full or in part, by the Guidelines. The district court also did not err by considering the sentencing factors, including defendant's extensive adult criminal record and likelihood of recidivism. Therefore, defendant's sentence, even if it was in the highest criminal history category, was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Thorne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's restitution order after she pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the solicitation and receipt of kickbacks in return for referring patients to a pharmacy. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant conspired with others to defraud the United States of an amount that justified the award. In this case, the offense of conviction did not authorize the amount of restitution ordered, but defendant's plea agreement allowed the court to consider other criminal conduct that would justify restitution. The court noted that, although defendant apparently did not ask the district court to retain the funds in its registry pending appeal, the clerk's disbursal of funds to victims did not moot the appeal, and the court had not been notified that defendant paid this amount to the district court or that the court disbursed such funds to victims. View "United States v. Polukhin" on Justia Law