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

Mark Whitworth was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Missouri State Highway Patrol officers executed a search warrant at Whitworth’s residence, finding methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and cash. Whitworth, his wife, and co-conspirator Russell Walker were present during the search. Text messages on Whitworth’s phone indicated drug sales. A grand jury indicted Whitworth on two counts related to methamphetamine distribution.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri oversaw Whitworth’s trial. Walker pled guilty before the trial and testified against Whitworth, stating he helped Whitworth sell methamphetamine. Another witness testified to purchasing methamphetamine from Whitworth. Whitworth’s defense argued that Walker acted alone. The jury found Whitworth guilty on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 235 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Whitworth appealed, challenging the district court’s decisions to strike a potential juror, admit testimony suggesting he had a prior felony, and apply an aggravated role enhancement in sentencing. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the juror due to the judge’s personal relationship with her family, as Whitworth failed to show prejudice. The court also found no error in admitting the testimony about the firearms, as it was relevant to the drug distribution charges. Lastly, the court upheld the aggravated role enhancement, finding sufficient evidence that Whitworth supervised Walker in the drug distribution scheme. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Whitworth" on Justia Law

Chad Eric Mink was convicted on June 24, 2019, of 15 counts related to a harassment campaign against his ex-girlfriend and her partner. He was sentenced to 600 months in prison. Mink appealed, and the Eighth Circuit vacated his conviction on one count and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts. One week before his resentencing hearing, Mink filed a combined motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, raising new challenges to four counts. He argued that the district court should extend the filing deadlines due to excusable neglect.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Mink's motion, finding that he had ample opportunity to file within the deadlines and that the issues raised did not involve new law or evidence. Mink appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its excusable-neglect determination. The district court found that Mink's delay was not justified by new legal developments and that he had control over the timing of his filing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The court applied the excusable-neglect standard, considering factors such as the reason for the delay, the length of the delay, potential prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the movant acted in good faith. The court found that Mink's delay of over three years was excessive and within his control, and that the new legal precedents he cited did not significantly alter the law applicable to his case. The court also noted the potential prejudice to the government if a new trial were granted. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Mink's motion, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Mink" on Justia Law

The case revolves around James "Tim" Norman, who was convicted of conspiring to commit murder for hire and murder for hire, as well as conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud. Norman had orchestrated the murder of his nephew, Andre Montgomery, and attempted to cash in on a fraudulent life insurance policy on his life. The insurance policy was set up without Montgomery's knowledge and would have resulted in a $450,000 payout upon Montgomery's death.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Norman appealed the decision, challenging several of the district court's trial rulings. He argued that two potential witnesses, Carroll and Yaghnam, had waived their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and should have been compelled to testify. The district court found that their claims of privilege were valid.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's rulings. The court held that Carroll and Yaghnam's claims of privilege were valid and that they faced real danger by testifying. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel Yaghnam to appear and assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in person, as Norman had failed to serve a subpoena. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting hearsay texts from Montgomery and an out-of-court statement from Carroll. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's use of demonstrative exhibits to summarize evidence. View "United States v. Norman" on Justia Law

The case involves Norman Thurber, who was convicted of six counts of production of child pornography. The charges stemmed from videos found on Thurber's cell phone, which depicted him engaging in sexual acts with a minor female. Thurber was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on each count, with the sentences running concurrently, and 10 years of supervised release to follow. Thurber appealed, challenging various trial rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court's imposition of standard conditions of supervised release in the written judgment that it did not orally pronounce at sentencing.The district court had ruled that Thurber was not entitled to present mistake of age as an affirmative defense, citing Eighth Circuit precedent. The court allowed Thurber to introduce evidence that the minor represented herself to be 18 years old, but only insofar as it was evidence that she was actually 18 years old, as age was an element of the offense. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Thurber’s convictions, but vacated the portion of the judgment imposing the standard conditions of supervised release and remanded to the district court for resentencing limited to the standard conditions. The court found that the district court did not err in refusing to allow Thurber to introduce additional portions of the text message exchange between him and the minor. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying Thurber the opportunity to present a mistake-of-age defense. View "United States v. Thurber" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Brandon Manning, who was convicted of two counts of Possession of Child Pornography. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had provided a tip that a Google subscriber, linked to Manning's accounts, had downloaded images of child pornography. A search warrant was executed at Manning's apartment, where officers seized his cellphone and a hard drive. A forensic examination of these devices revealed thousands of images and videos containing child pornography. The government also discovered incriminating writing on the back cover of the broken phone, which was disclosed to Manning just before the trial.The district court allowed the government to present evidence regarding the writing and its meaning, despite Manning's objection to the untimely disclosure. The jury found Manning guilty, and he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Manning appealed his conviction and sentence, challenging the admission of his prior Iowa conviction and the district court’s sanction for the government’s untimely disclosure of evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Manning's prior conviction qualifies as "child molestation" under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, even if the categorical approach was applied. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to introduce evidence of the late-disclosed writing on the back cover of the broken cellphone. The court found that Manning had not shown that his defense was prejudiced and that a continuance allowing him to conduct his own investigation would have remedied the alleged prejudice. The court also upheld the application of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and the calculation of Manning's criminal history category. View "U.S. v. Manning" on Justia Law

Anthony Wings, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition. During sentencing, the district court determined that Wings's base offense level was twenty due to a prior felony conviction for a crime of violence. This prior conviction was for a second-degree domestic assault in Missouri in 2011. The presentence report stated that Wings had attempted to cause physical injury by choking a woman, D.G. Wings did not object to this characterization of his prior offense.The district court adopted the presentence report's recommendation, which led to a higher advisory guideline range for sentencing. Wings appealed, arguing that the record did not establish that his prior offense constituted a crime of violence. He claimed that the district court erred by relying on the presentence report's reference to allegations in "court records," as the report did not specify that these records were the type a court could rely on in determining whether the prior conviction satisfies the relevant definition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, as Wings had not objected to the prior felony determination at the district court level. The government moved the court to take judicial notice of the charging document, guilty plea, and state-court judgment that established Wings's domestic assault conviction. The court agreed to take judicial notice, as Wings did not dispute the authenticity of the documents and there was no reason to doubt their accuracy.The court concluded that Wings's prior offense was indeed a crime of violence under the applicable sentencing guideline. The court affirmed the district court's determination of Wings's base offense level and the judgment of the district court. The court granted the motion to take judicial notice and denied as moot the alternative motion to supplement the record. View "United States v. Wings" on Justia Law

Ashena Laquita Tucker Jackson was convicted for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The investigation began after law enforcement received information that she and her husband were distributing drugs from their home. A search warrant executed on her residence revealed firearms, drugs, and evidence of drug sales. Tucker Jackson pled guilty and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. She appealed her sentence, arguing that the district court miscalculated her United States Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed an unreasonable sentence.The district court calculated Tucker Jackson's base offense level based on her previous felony controlled substance conviction and assessed several enhancements, including a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with felony drug trafficking. Tucker Jackson challenged these calculations, arguing that she was a mere drug user rather than a drug trafficker and that she did not write the letters attempting to obtain synthetic marijuana while in custody. The district court rejected her arguments and imposed a 120-month sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not err in calculating Tucker Jackson's base offense level and that sufficient evidence existed to support the four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with felony drug trafficking. The court also found no error in the district court's decision to deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's imposition of a 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Garland Joseph Nelson was convicted of mail fraud and being a felon in possession of a firearm, following a cattle fraud scheme he operated in Missouri. Nelson received cattle from Diemel’s Livestock, a company owned by brothers Justin and Nicholas Diemel, with the agreement to feed and sell the cattle after they had grown. However, Nelson failed to properly care for the cattle, resulting in many deaths. Instead of disclosing the loss, Nelson continued to accept more cattle and sell them under the pretense of the original agreement. Nelson also engaged in similar fraudulent conduct with farmer David Foster in Kansas and farm owner John Gingerich in Missouri.Nelson was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $260,925.07 in restitution by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Nelson appealed the restitution order, arguing that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove loss amounts by a preponderance of the evidence and that the restitution award to Diemel’s Livestock would result in double recovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution order. The court found that Nelson failed to object to the factual allegations regarding the loss amounts outlined in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), and thus the district court did not err in accepting the unobjected-to loss amounts. The court also disagreed with Nelson's argument that the restitution order amounted to an impermissible double recovery, as the settlement agreement expressly stated that Diemel’s Livestock would not recover damages under the settlement, and Nelson did not present evidence that Diemel’s Livestock received any other compensation in connection with the fraud alleged in this case. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Steven Barros Pinto was convicted on multiple counts related to the importation and distribution of drugs, following a nineteen-day trial. The evidence presented at trial established a drug distribution and importation conspiracy led by Jason Berry and Daniel Ceron, who operated a drug-trafficking operation via the dark web from a Canadian prison. They recruited distributors online, including Anthony Gomes and Brandon Hubbard, who distributed fentanyl shipped from China. Pinto, a childhood friend of Gomes, initially declined to join the operation but later contacted Gomes to distribute pills supplied by Ceron. Pinto became an integral part of the fentanyl pill production and distribution network, utilizing others to assist in distribution and financial transactions in multiple states.Pinto was charged in the district of North Dakota on multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to import controlled substances, participation in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to launder money. Pinto appealed, arguing that venue was improper on the drug conspiracy counts and challenging his conviction on the money laundering conspiracy count. He also raised a Double Jeopardy argument as to the drug conspiracy counts and the CCE count.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of a single conspiracy, making venue proper in North Dakota. The court also found no grounds for reversal in Pinto’s challenge to the credibility of the government’s cooperating witnesses. Regarding Pinto’s challenge to his conviction on the money laundering conspiracy count, the court found that the indictment provided Pinto with sufficient notice of the charge. Finally, the court agreed with Pinto that his separate convictions and sentences on the drug conspiracy count and the CCE count violated the prohibition against Double Jeopardy. The court remanded to the district court to vacate Pinto’s conviction on either the drug conspiracy count or the CCE count and proceed to resentencing. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Pinto" on Justia Law

Jonathan Lee Sutton was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The case arose from two shooting incidents in Davenport, Iowa, where Sutton was identified as the shooter. Sutton was associated with a Tesla vehicle, which was found abandoned with ammunition visible. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a pistol, ammunition, and receipts for the firearm's recent purchase. Sutton, a previous felon, was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and pleaded guilty.The district court imposed three sex-offender-related special conditions of supervised release based on allegations that Sutton had committed incest, resulting in a child. The government claimed that the presentence investigation report (PSR) omitted this incestuous relationship. The probation office declined to amend the PSR, stating that the government's objections were commentary in nature. The court, however, expressed concern over the allegations and imposed the special conditions, offering Sutton an "escape valve" if he could prove he did not father a child incestuously.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the district court had abused its discretion. The court had used a probable cause standard instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard for judicial fact-finding at sentencing. The court's factual findings about Sutton's alleged incest and paternity were not supported by the sentencing record. The court also improperly shifted the burden of proof from the government to Sutton. The court vacated the sex-offender-related special conditions and remanded the case. View "United States v. Sutton" on Justia Law