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

Defendant was convicted of two counts of sex trafficking by use of force, threat, fraud, or coercion; three counts of sex trafficking of a minor; twelve counts of producing child pornography of minors; two counts of receiving child pornography; and one count of commission of a felony offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and the order of restitution to K.M.L. In this case, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence from his cell phones and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find him guilty of committing a felony offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant harmed K.M.L. and the request for restitution was appropriate. However, the court vacated the order of restitution to Anoka County, holding that the district court abused its discretion where there was no evidence that the County paid for K.M.L.'s residential treatment. View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted bank robbery and bank robbery. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts where the jury determined that defendant was the person who robbed the Charter Bank and attempted to rob the Wells Fargo Bank. The court also held that defendant's 150 month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court had wide latitude to weigh the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant for crimes that were quite serious. View "United States v. Tong Moua" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought a certificate of innocence under 28 U.S.C. 2513 and, simultaneously but separately, filed the instant case against Defendants Garrett and Sharp, among others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The jury subsequently returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the section 1983 action and defendants appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff's prior arrests on drug offenses; in permitting limited testimony by the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted defendant Garrett as the evidence helped the jury understand the criminal charges which had been filed; and in permitting plaintiff to introduce expert testimony on police practices from a psychologist who was also a former police captain and police psychologist. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy to violate plaintiff's civil rights and to support the jury's verdict on his state law claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Finally, the court rejected challenges to jury instructions on conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and damages. View "Holmes v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from a cell phone after he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child. The court held that defendant's girlfriend was acting as a private citizen, rather than a government agent, when she retrieved the phone from his vehicle. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not applicable in this case, because the retrieval of the phone amounted to private conduct rather than government action. The court reasoned that the girlfriend did not search the vehicle at the officer's request and there was insufficient evidence to show that she was motivated solely or even primarily by the intent to aid the officers. View "United States v. Highbull" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not err by admitting the testimony of a witness that she saw defendant carrying a handgun before the search because it was relevant and the jury could determine how much weight to give the testimony. The court also held that defendant's prior convictions for Minnesota second degree assault qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act; the ACCA's force clause was not unconstitutionally vague; and the district court did not err in finding that defendant was an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Pendleton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for second degree domestic assault in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.073 qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the government's evidence at sentencing was sufficient to show that defendant was convicted of violating Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 565.073.1(1), a crime of violence under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2(a)(1)'s force clause. View "United States v. Doyal" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 130 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of heroin distribution. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing an upward departure for distribution of heroin resulting in death under USSG 5K2. The court also held that the district court did not give significant weight to an irrelevant factor by giving weight to defendant's knowledge that the victim used Vivitrol; the district court gave adequate weight to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and the sentence was within the range of reasonableness for a drug offense resulting in death and thus was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief to petitioner. The court held that neither of petitioner's Illinois burglary nor his Missouri second-degree burglary convictions were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Consequently, petitioner did not have three qualifying prior convictions and was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal. In this case, defendant's sentence of 216 months' imprisonment exceeded the statutory maximum applicable under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), and thus the court remanded for resentencing. View "Cravens v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography, but remanded with instructions to vacate the lesser-included possession conviction because the district court failed to instruct the jury that it could not convict defendant for both receipt and possession based on the same facts. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the receipt of child pornography conviction; any objection to venue was waived; there was no constructive amendment to the indictment nor a material variance from the indictment; even if the district court plainly erred by admitting a spreadsheet listing suspected files of child pornography, which was inadmissible hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and reversal was not required; and defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct was rejected. View "United States v. Morrissey" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for misappropriating over $5000 in federal grant funds that were distributed to the organization that he managed to subsidize an after-school program for children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A). The Eighth Circuit held that section 666(a)(1)(A) is not a continuing offense and a defendant may not be charged for a section 666(a)(1)(A) offense committed outside the five-year statute of limitations. However, like the defendant in this case, when a defendant has committed the offense both within and outside the limitations period, he may be charged with violations committed within the limitations period. The court held that any error in admitting evidence related to expenditures outside the limitations period did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Furthermore, there was no error in admitting a purported grant application into evidence; any error regarding the admission of hearsay at a pre-trial release proceeding was moot; and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. View "United States v. Askia" on Justia Law