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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that evidence regarding the firearm's operability was properly excluded because it would have yielded substantial juror confusion without having significant probative value regarding the issue of weapon design; the firearm, a .380 Cobra, qualified as a firearm for purposes of the statute despite its missing pieces and broken parts; and proof that the firearm was operable was not required because the language of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) requires only that the weapon was designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The court held however that the district court erred by sentencing defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act in light of the court's en banc decision in United States v. Naylor, 887 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc). Therefore, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hardin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry as a removed alien after an aggravated felony conviction. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by increasing defendant's base offense level by eight under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), based on his previous burglary convictions under California law. The court upheld the aggravated felony enhancement under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), and held that defendant could not maintain his vagueness challenge under the reasoning in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). The court also held that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Sanchez-Rojas" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Benton, Tate, and Kesari's conviction of causing false records, causing false campaign expenditure reports, engaging in a false statements scheme; and conspiring to commit these offenses. Benton served as campaign chairman in Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, Tate served as campaign manager, and Kesari served as deputy campaign manager. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants; the jury was entitled to infer from the facts that Benton and Tate had knowingly and willfully caused Commission reports to be filed which falsely reported the payments to a senator for his endorsement as payments to ICT for audio/visual services; the court rejected defendants' arguments that the reporting requirements were so vague or confusing that the court should either apply the rule of lenity or determine that criminal enforcement was not appropriate in this case; Kesari's counts were not multiplicitious; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tate's motion to sever his trial from his codefendants; and the court rejected challenges to the jury instructions, evidentiary challenges, and a Jencks Act claim. View "United States v. Benton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearms charges. The court held that no plain procedural error occurred, and any such error would have been harmless because the district court sentenced defendant to the statutory minimum. Furthermore, the sentence was not subject to review for reasonableness because it was statutorily imposed. In this case, there was no basis for defendant's claim that his guilty plea to all three counts was not knowing and voluntary or that the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Finally, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw. View "United States v. Padilla" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bank robbery, holding that the district court did not err by failing to suppress an in-court identification. The court explained that, even if the district court erred in not conducting a reliability analysis under Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), defendant's arguments failed because the error was not plain under current law where the courts were divided as to whether a reliability analysis was required to admit an in-court identification. View "United States v. Shumpert" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 180 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault on a family member in violation of Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 5-26-306(a)(3) was a violent felony for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Therefore, defendant had three prior violent felony convictions and could be sentenced under the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to the Act. View "United States v. Pyles" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's federal sentence should be consecutive to the undischarged portion of his state sentence. The court also held that defendant waived his argument that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because he raised the argument for the first time in his reply. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's federal sentence should be consecutive to the undischarged portion of his state sentence. The court also held that defendant waived his argument that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because he raised the argument for the first time in his reply. View "United States v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 228 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to attempted distribution of child pornography, attempted receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court properly concluded that defendant's sex-crimes convictions triggered an enhanced statutory sentencing range for each offense and that he qualified for a pattern-of-activity enhancement pursuant to USSG 2G2.2(b)(5). View "United States v. Grimes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 228 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to attempted distribution of child pornography, attempted receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court properly concluded that defendant's sex-crimes convictions triggered an enhanced statutory sentencing range for each offense and that he qualified for a pattern-of-activity enhancement pursuant to USSG 2G2.2(b)(5). View "United States v. Grimes" on Justia Law