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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for firearms-related charges. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of stolen firearms and for being a felon in possession of a firearm; there was no extraordinary circumstance in this case permitting the court to review the jury's credibility determinations; evidentiary challenges were rejected; the district court did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) based on the number of weapons involved in the offenses, USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearms in connection with another felony offense, and USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; and the sentence imposed did not create unwarranted sentencing disparities. View "United States v. Hemsher" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 72 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter. The court held that the district court neither abused its discretion nor committed a clear error of judgment in weighing defendant's prior DUI conviction. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving significant weight to the state statute in sentencing defendant. In this case, the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and thus defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Grace" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States and the Deputy U.S. Marshals in their individual and official capacities on plaintiff's claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and assault and battery under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In this case, plaintiff was mistakenly arrested when defendants were executing an arrest warrant for another individual. Applying Missouri tort law, the court held that none of plaintiff's proposed facts contradicted a material fact that the district court relied on in conducting its summary judgment analysis; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the false arrest and false imprisonment claim where plaintiff's arrest and 20-minute detention were justified; defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for abuse of process; and the court's prior holding on qualified immunity was dispositive of plaintiff's assault and battery claim. View "Wright v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) to petitioner, who was convicted of statutory sodomy and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The court held that the Missouri state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when they held that the admission of, and the state's reference to, the entirety of petitioner's post-Miranda interview did not constitute a violation under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). The panel reasoned that the playing of the interview and the references to it were not designed to draw meaning from petitioner's eventual assertion of his right to remain silent. Furthermore, the determination by the Missouri Court of Appeals that any error was harmless did not constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts, and thus any error in admitting the video did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, foreclosing any entitlement to habeas relief. View "Ervin v. Bowersox" on Justia Law

After the Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence on the ground that second-degree robbery in Missouri was not a violent felony under the reasoning of United States v. Bell, 840 F.3d 963, 965-67 (8th Cir. 2016), the en banc court held that the district court properly counted defendant's Missouri robbery conviction as a violent felony. The en banc court granted rehearing, overruled Bell, and then returned the case to this panel to resolve the balance of defendant's appeal.The panel held that defendant's conviction for unlawful use of a weapon in Missouri was a conviction for a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Therefore, defendant sustained three previous convictions for a violent felony at the time of his offense in this case, and the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Swopes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. His advisory guidelines range was 324-405 months’ imprisonment, but the statutory maximum for his offense was 240 months’ imprisonment, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C). The court varied downward under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and imposed a term of 210 months’ imprisonment. In 2013, the court reduced that sentence to 150 months under FRCP 35(b), based on the government's motion to reflect the defendant’s provision of substantial assistance. In 2016, the defendant moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) based on Guidelines Amendment 782, which retroactively reduced his base offense level by two levels and resulted in an amended guideline range of 262-327 months’ imprisonment. The district court concluded that because the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment was lower than the minimum of the appellant’s amended guideline range, his “guideline range remains unchanged and he is not eligible for a further reduction.” A court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if he was sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C 3582(c)(2). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The lowered guideline range played no relevant part in determining the defendant’s sentence; he is ineligible for a reduction under section 3582(c). View "In re Sealed Case" on Justia Law

Defendants challenged their sentences after being convicted of various crimes related to their involvement in a scheme to purchase and ship firearms to Lebanon for resale. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Defendant Ali was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy and by imposing a ten-level sentencing enhancement after finding that his offense conduct involved 200 or more firearms; the district court did not clearly err in denying acceptance of responsibility to Ali in light of his attempt to minimize his conduct and his frivolous objections to his relevant conduct; and Ali's sentence was substantively reasonable. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing a three-level sentence enhancement based on Defendant Bassem's role as a manager or supervisor or by finding that the conspiracy was otherwise extensive; the district court did not err in denying Bassem's motion to hold a hearing and in refusing to compel the government to file a substantial assistance motion; and Bassem's sentence was substantively reasonable. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant Zeaiter a three-level mitigating role adjustment and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her a downward variance. View "United States v. Zeaiter" on Justia Law

After plaintiffs were exonerated for the murder of Helen Wilson in 2008, they filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that their arrests and imprisonment were the result of a reckless investigation and manufactured false evidence, as well as parallel conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. 1985. Plaintiffs were awarded approximately $28.1 million in damages. The Eighth Circuit held that it would not review or reverse its prior rulings as to whether Gage County could be held liable; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding Gage County liable; the facts developed at trial continued to support the district court's conclusion that the sheriff's deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity; the deputies conducted a reckless investigation and fabricated evidence; limited references to plaintiffs' innocence did not warrant a new trial in light of the curative actions and overwhelming evidence; and there was no error in the reckless investigation jury instruction. View "Dean v. Searcey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The court held that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial when he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic abuse in 2013. Therefore, defendant was barred from possessing the firearm. View "United States v. Ler Wah Guide" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court held that defendant was not eligible for a reduction where the district court correctly concluded that USSG 5G1.3(b) and a sentence adjustment for time served on an undischarged term of imprisonment did not enter into the calculation of Helm’s amended guideline range. Therefore, defendant's current sentence of 96 months was less than his amended guideline range of 110 to 137 months. View "United States v. Helm" on Justia Law