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

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 31 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of two conditions that limited his freedom to have contact with his minor daughter and the daughter's mother. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the conditions were reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors and were reasonably necessary restrictions on defendant's liberty. View "United States v. Stelmacher" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his vehicle after he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges. In this case, a police drug dog instinctively lunged into defendant's vehicle and eventually found drugs in the car. The court held that, assuming for the sake of analysis that the dog's entry into the vehicle was a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was justified by probable cause to believe that the car contained contraband. In this case, officers had no responsibility to close the car's door after defendant's companion opened it and voluntarily exited the car. The court explained that, insofar as the dog's ability to perceive the odor of drugs from outside the car was enhanced by the open door, the situation was created voluntarily by the passenger, and there was no unlawful search in leaving the door open. View "United States v. Pulido-Ayala" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to a government agency and aggravated identity theft. The court held that the district court did not procedurally err by basing the sentence on erroneous findings and unconstitutional factors. In this case, the district court was not obligated to credit defendant's claim that he absconded from supervision in California because he feared the "mob" and defendant's argument that he was punished for indigence was unsupported. The court also held that the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the district court's upward variance going from 12 months to 24 months when the statutory maximum was 60 months was reasonable. View "United States v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrant using the Network Investigative Technique (NIT). The court held that defendant's challenge to the NIT warrant was preempted by the court's decision in United States v. Horton, 863 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2017), where the NIT warrant was upheld under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to compel disclosure of the complete source code for all software used to identify him. View "United States v. Jean" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop and statements made to officers after his arrest, holding that law enforcement officers did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and there was no basis to exclude the disputed evidence. In this case, the officers had probable cause to believe defendant committed a drug trafficking offense and that evidence of the offense was contained in his vehicle. Furthermore, the drug dog's failure to alert on the car was relevant to the probable cause determination, but was not determinative. The court reasoned that police may consider other, pre-existing information in making the objective determination as to whether there was a fair probability that evidence of the crime was in the vehicle. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for receipt of child pornography after the district court vacated his conviction for the lesser-included possession of child pornography count. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to produce PSRs for all cases in the district involving possession or receipt of child pornography; by vacating the possession count where the greater weight of authority in situations with a greater offense and a lesser-included offense was to vacate the lesser-included offense; by disregarding the child pornography guidelines on policy grounds; and by sentencing defendant to 74 months in prison where it provided adequate explanation for its decision and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of raping an adult woman with the mental capacity of a young child and sentenced to seventy years in prison as a habitual offender. The court held that, under Arkansas law, parole-eligibility determinations by the Department of Corrections did not constitute a modification of a prison sentence. Therefore, trial counsel's deficient performance in this case did not deprive petitioner of a due process claim that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609(b) should not apply when the jury, court, and defendant were unaware of the Act and did not intend for the Act to apply to the judgment. Although the state court improperly instructed the jury that petitioner would be eligible for parole after serving 70% of his sentence if sentenced to a term of years, petitioner was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington when his trial counsel failed to correct the error. View "Stewart v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of raping an adult woman with the mental capacity of a young child and sentenced to seventy years in prison as a habitual offender. The court held that, under Arkansas law, parole-eligibility determinations by the Department of Corrections did not constitute a modification of a prison sentence. Therefore, trial counsel's deficient performance in this case did not deprive petitioner of a due process claim that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609(b) should not apply when the jury, court, and defendant were unaware of the Act and did not intend for the Act to apply to the judgment. Although the state court improperly instructed the jury that petitioner would be eligible for parole after serving 70% of his sentence if sentenced to a term of years, petitioner was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington when his trial counsel failed to correct the error. View "Stewart v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Perez-Trevino, Flores, and Castellanos' convictions for crimes related to their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the police department's policy contained sufficiently standardized police procedures for an officer to inventory the contents of a vehicle and its compartments; at the time he opened the cooler, the officer had sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; and thus the district court properly denied Perez-Trevino's motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine found in the cooler. In regard to Castellanos' wiretap argument, the court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the wiretap application provided sufficient information to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be found, as well as the need to use a wiretap. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Perez-Trevino of conspiracy; the district court did not err in denying Perez-Trevino's proposed jury instruction; the evidentiary challenges were rejected; Flores' sentence was correctly calculated and the sentence was substantively reasonable; Castellano was not entitled to a minor role reduction; and the evidence supported the drug quantity calculation for Castellano and her sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Perez-Trevino" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Perez-Trevino, Flores, and Castellanos' convictions for crimes related to their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the police department's policy contained sufficiently standardized police procedures for an officer to inventory the contents of a vehicle and its compartments; at the time he opened the cooler, the officer had sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; and thus the district court properly denied Perez-Trevino's motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine found in the cooler. In regard to Castellanos' wiretap argument, the court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the wiretap application provided sufficient information to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be found, as well as the need to use a wiretap. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Perez-Trevino of conspiracy; the district court did not err in denying Perez-Trevino's proposed jury instruction; the evidentiary challenges were rejected; Flores' sentence was correctly calculated and the sentence was substantively reasonable; Castellano was not entitled to a minor role reduction; and the evidence supported the drug quantity calculation for Castellano and her sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Perez-Trevino" on Justia Law