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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 324 month sentence for conspiracy to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for undue influence under USSG 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) where defendant helped groom her nine year old daughter for criminal sexual activity; the application of a parental relationship enhancement under 2G1.2(b)(1)(A) did not result in impermissible double-counting; the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for USSG 2G1.3(b)(3)(A) for the use of a computer where the computer and programs like Facebook were used to persuade and influence the child to engage in sexual activities; and the district court carefully weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant at the bottom of the guidelines range. View "United States v. Mitteness" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's calculation of the loss amount in defendant's sentence after he was convicted of five counts of wire fraud. The court held that the district court properly determined that defendant's employer was a victim of the fraud scheme and that the company suffered actual and intended pecuniary losses, and the district court did not commit clear error in finding that certain uncharged conduct was part of defendant's common scheme or plan and including that conduct in the calculation of loss. The court vacated, however, the restitution award. The court held that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act applied to the wire fraud conviction and the court reversed and remanded in light of Lagos v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1684 (May 29, 2018). View "United States v. Cornelsen" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and declined to adopt a "gilding exception" to the Speedy Trial Act and, even if it did, dismissal of defendant's claim would be unwarranted; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and ultimately found that defendant's sentence was necessary because of defendant's extremely high risk of recidivism and lack of respect for authority; and the Special Condition 3 of his supervised release, which deals with gang association, was unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, the court vacated the condition and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of a decision finding petitioner removable from the United States. The court held that the BIA did not err by concluding that petitioner was removable for committing a controlled substance and an aggravated felony. In this case, petitioner's prior Missouri conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 195.211 made him removable. View "Martinez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of a decision finding petitioner removable from the United States. The court held that the BIA did not err by concluding that petitioner was removable for committing a controlled substance and an aggravated felony. In this case, petitioner's prior Missouri conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 195.202 made him removable. View "Bueno-Muela v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of life without parole for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; the district court did not plainly err in admitting the fingerprint testimony of a government expert; any error in admitting the testimony did not affect defendant's substantial rights in light of the additional evidence presented; defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance in South Dakota met the statutory requirements as a prior felony drug offense under 21 U.S.C. 841(b); the amendment of the information prior to sentencing merely corrected a clerical mistake; and, given the gravity of the offense and in light of defendant' felony convictions, defendant's sentence was constitutional. View "United States v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Patrolling I-30, Arkansas State Police Corporal Goodman stopped a Tornado bus for following too closely. Goodman regularly received High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area summaries that reported seizures from Tornado buses; traffickers were storing drugs in unlabeled luggage. Goodman observed that bus driver was “pretty nervous” and said he was driving to Milwaukee from southern Texas while passenger manifest indicated the destination was Chicago. Goodman thought it suspicious that the company would undertake a costly cross-country trip with only four passengers. The driver consented to a search and opened doors to a luggage compartment. Goodman saw six bags with name tags plus “a black bag all by itself with no apparent markings" and no name tag. Goodman opened the black bag and reached inside, feeling what he believed was a false bottom. While trying to access the hidden compartment, Goodman saw a tag bearing Tuton’s name trapped beneath the bag’s collapsed handle. Goodman stopped searching, requested a canine unit, and questioned the passengers. Goodman testified that Tuton was “very nervous,” said his journey began in El Paso, and gave answers that “didn’t make sense.” Goodman did not ask Tuton for consent to search. About four minutes after Goodman requested the canine unit, Corporal Rapert arrived with his dog, Hemi. Hemi jumped into the luggage compartment and immediately showed behavioral changes. Rapert concluded Hemi had given a “profound alert,” but did not give a “final indication” on any bag. Rapert advised Goodman that Hemi’s behavior provided probable cause to search. Officers searched all the bags and, in Tuton’s, found eight pounds of cocaine under the false bottom. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Tuton’s motion to suppress. Discovery of the cocaine was not caused by Goodman’s prior unlawful search of the bag; Hemi’s sniff and alert were unaffected by that search. View "United States v. Tuton" on Justia Law

Rosales-Martinez was charged with sexual abuse in the second degree for inappropriately touching his step-daughter, A.C. Before trial, the state sought a protective order for A.C.’s deposition, requiring that Rosales-Martinez be separated from her by a one-way mirror and that she not be told he is on the other side. Rosales-Martinez consented to the mirror but requested A.C. be told he was present and could hear her. After hearing testimony from the child’s therapist and her foster mother, the court denied Rosales-Martinez’s request, finding that A.C. would suffer serious trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant and that it would impair A.C.’s ability to communicate. Before trial, the state sought a protective order for A.C.’s testimony. Rosales-Martinez agreed to A.C. testifying by closed-circuit television, but again requested she be told he was present and could hear her. Relying on the previous findings, the judge denied Rosales-Martinez’s request. The jury deadlocked. Before retrial, A.C.’s guardian ad litem told the court that the previous procedure was still necessary based on conversations with A.C. The court reiterated its previous findings. Rosales-Martinez was convicted. Iowa courts affirmed and denied post-conviction relief. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a federal habeas petition. After a proper finding of necessity, a child witness may testify by use of a special procedure if under oath, subject to full cross-examination, and “observed by” the judge, jury, and defendant. View "Rosales-Martinez v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

During the Rwandan Genocide, the United States admitted a limited number of refugees with priority given to those who were in the most danger, including, in 1998, Ngombwa and purported members of his family. In 1998, DHS received information from prosecutors in Rwanda that Ngombwa had twice been convicted in absentia by Rwandan tribal courts for participation in the Genocide and had been named in an indictment in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The government proved at trial that his admission, status, and eventual naturalization were based on material falsehoods. At sentencing, the government proved to the district court’s satisfaction that the falsehoods were used to conceal Ngombwa’s participation in the Genocide. The Eighth Circuit affirmed his convictions for unlawful procurement of naturalization and conspiracy to commit the same, 18 U.S.C. 1425, 371, and his above-Guidelines sentence of 180 months. Rejecting Ngombwa’s claim his counsel was ineffective for failing to contact and interview five of his family members, the court reasoned that counsel made a strategic decision to avoid more detrimental evidence. View "United States v. Ngombwa" on Justia Law

Glover was imprisoned for distributing cocaine base. In 2015, he began serving his five-year term of supervised release. In 2016, he was arrested for unlawfully possessing marijuana packaged for delivery and interfering with official acts. The district court found him in violation of the terms of his supervised release, imposed a revocation sentence of eight months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release, with the new special condition that he not have contact with his fiancee, Watkins, who is the mother of his child. An officer had testified that, during a recorded phone call after Glover’s arrest, Glover and Watkins discussed the day of Glover’s arrest in a way that implicated Watkins as having been in a “tailing” car. The judge stated: He’s not going to be able to have contact with her because she was engaged in criminal activity, and indicated that Watkins may have stolen items found in their shared home. The Eighth Circuit vacated the condition. The district court’s explanation was not sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. It appears Watkins had knowledge of at least some of Glover’s criminal activity, but the nature of her involvement is unclear; the court made no findings regarding her connection to the money or clothes and expressed uncertainty as to whether Watkins was the mother of Glover’s child. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law