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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal from Jacob Bermel, who had pleaded guilty to two child pornography offenses following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was found on a camera he had hidden in his daughter's bathroom. Bermel argued that the warrantless seizure and subsequent search of the camera and its memory card violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the district court found that the seizure was justified by exigent circumstances and that the search was lawful due to the daughter's consent.On appeal, Bermel made three arguments: (1) minor children cannot consent to a search of their parents' property, (2) even if minors can consent, his daughter lacked such authority, and (3) the district court erred in finding that his daughter had consented to the search of the camera and memory card.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It rejected Bermel's first argument, stating that there is no legal precedent for a per se rule that minors cannot consent to a search of their parents' property. The court also found that the daughter had apparent authority to consent to the search given her joint access and control over the camera and its memory card. Finally, the court determined that the daughter had indeed consented to the search of the camera and its memory card. The court noted that lack of verbal response did not negate consent and the scope of her consent reasonably extended to the camera's memory card. View "United States v. Bermel" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant, Bradley Ready, appealed his sentence following his guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The court affirmed the district court's decision.During a search of Ready's residence, law enforcement officers found drug paraphernalia, scales, a loaded hunting rifle, and three bags of methamphetamine. Ready was subsequently charged and pleaded guilty to both counts. At sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office recommended grouping the drug and gun counts together and applying a two-level enhancement due to the possession of a dangerous weapon. Ready objected to this enhancement, but the district court overruled this objection.On appeal, Ready argued that the district court erred in applying the enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon and applied the wrong standard in determining his eligibility for safety valve relief. The appellate court found no error in the district court's conclusions.The appellate court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon, as it was not "clearly improbable" that the rifle found in Ready's bedroom was connected to the distribution of methamphetamine from his home. The court also held that the district court did not err in its application of the standard for determining Ready's eligibility for safety valve relief. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Ready" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case of Ramona Cook, who was charged with arson after setting fires in a hotel from which she was fired. After Cook's initial appearance and arraignment, a magistrate judge issued a pretrial detention order under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which the district court upheld after conducting de novo review. They both agreed that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Cook presented a serious risk of flight if released, and that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure Cook's appearance and the safety of any other person or the community. Cook appealed this detention order, arguing that the district court failed to properly conduct an initial hearing into whether she presented a serious risk of flight.The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected Cook's argument for a rigid two-step inquiry for pretrial detention, noting that the two inquiries - whether the defendant presents a serious risk of flight, and whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance - substantially overlap. The court also found that Cook's history of absconding from probation, her history of failing to appear, her charge for a serious federal offense, her potential lengthy prison sentence, her criminal history in multiple states, and her mental health history all weighed heavily in favor of finding a serious risk of flight. View "United States v. Ramona Cook" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit evaluated a decision by the Western District Court of Missouri, which had denied Robin M. Sims's motion for compassionate release from prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In 2015, Sims was convicted of drug trafficking and firearm offenses and was sentenced to 360 months in prison. In 2022, he filed a motion for compassionate release, citing changes to the Armed Career Criminal Act since his sentencing and his medical conditions as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in sentence. The district court denied the motion, stating that Sims's arguments did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.The Court of Appeals found that the district court had misunderstood Sims's arguments and the government's position. Instead of arguing for compassionate release due to an increased risk of contracting COVID-19, Sims had argued that he had contracted COVID-19 in custody, was experiencing ongoing medical complications, and was receiving inadequate medical care. The government had conceded that Sims had established "extraordinary and compelling" reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but the district court mistakenly stated that the government had opposed Sims's motion on the basis that he had failed to do so.The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court, instructing it to consider the full scope of Sims's argument in support of "extraordinary and compelling" reasons, and if such reasons were found, to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in light of these reasons. The court emphasized the need for an individualized inquiry in motions for compassionate release. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence of Christopher M. Holmes who was resentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment under the First Step Act for his involvement in a narcotics-distribution ring. Holmes appealed his sentence, alleging that the district court committed procedural error and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Holmes claimed that the district court erred in attributing to him a drug quantity of 50-150 kilograms of cocaine rather than five or more kilograms as established by the jury’s verdict, and assigning three criminal-history points for an unconstitutional Illinois weapons conviction. The court of appeals held that even if there was an error in the district court's calculation of the Guidelines range, it was harmless because the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of how it ruled on the objections. Holmes also argued that the district court failed to adequately explain its sentence and consider his arguments for a downward variance. The court of appeals found that the district court did not err in explaining the sentence and considered the relevant factors in sentencing. Lastly, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the relevant factors and thus, the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas's decision to sentence Jordan Cutler to 180 months in prison for distributing child pornography, a sentence that exceeded the Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. Cutler appealed, arguing that the district court made a procedural error in calculating the Guidelines range and asserting that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Cutler claimed that the district court erred in assessing one criminal history point under the Sentencing Guidelines for a set of uncounseled misdemeanors from 2010.The appellate court rejected this argument, explaining that Cutler's uncounseled misdemeanors were not voided by his lack of counsel, as the fines associated with these misdemeanors were constitutionally valid and could be used to enhance his punishment. The court clarified that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for misdemeanor defendants only applies where the defendant receives a prison sentence, not when the defendant is merely fined.In terms of the substantive reasonableness of Cutler's sentence, the appellate court again affirmed the district court's decision. The court explained that although the Guidelines captured certain aspects of Cutler's offense, they did not reflect the "heinous" nature of his crimes, including threats to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill young girls. Cutler also argued that the district court improperly considered its reputation and public perception when determining his sentence. However, the appellate court disagreed, noting that the district court was considering the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.Therefore, the appellate court found no procedural or substantive error in Cutler's sentencing and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Cutler" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the defendant, Felipe Lorthridge, could be involuntarily medicated to restore his competency to stand trial. Lorthridge was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of ten years. After being diagnosed with schizophrenia and found incompetent to stand trial, the government moved to medicate him involuntarily to restore his competency, as allowed under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). The court found that bringing an individual accused of a serious crime to trial is an important governmental interest and that the involuntary medication of Lorthridge would significantly further that interest. The court also found that the medication was necessary to further that interest and was medically appropriate. Lorthridge appealed the decision, challenging the lower court's conclusions on the first, second, and fourth elements of the Sell test. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no clear error in its judgement. View "United States v. Lorthridge" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal from a defendant who was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to 57 months in prison, with an order of restitution. The defendant, White Shield, had assaulted another woman with a metal bar in a fit of jealousy when she discovered the woman in the truck with her husband.She appealed the conviction on two grounds. First, she argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial after a witness mentioned three times that she was on probation. The court of appeals disagreed, stating that the trial court had broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for mistrial, and in this case, the reference to the defendant's probation status had minimal, if any, prejudicial effect. The court also noted that the trial court's instruction to the jury to disregard the reference to probation mitigated any potential prejudice.Second, White Shield contested the restitution amount, as there was a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment. The court agreed with this contention, clarifying that when there is a conflict between an oral sentence and written judgment, the oral sentence prevails.The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and the denial of the motion for mistrial but remanded the case back to the district court to amend the written judgment to align with the oral sentence regarding the restitution amount. View "United States v. Juanita White Shield" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. The district court determined an advisory sentencing guideline range of 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment and varied upward from the range to impose a term of 92 months’ imprisonment. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court plainly erred in calculating an advisory guideline range because his prior conviction for kidnapping in Arizona was not a conviction for a “crime of violence.”The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant contends that Marquez-Lobos is obviously wrong and that the Arizona kidnapping plainly does not qualify as a generic kidnapping. His theory is that the Arizona statute encompasses kidnappings that do not involve an unlawful deprivation of liberty as defined by most States. But he contends that kidnapping in Arizona is broader than the generic offense because the Arizona statute assertedly applies to the restraint of any person who is incapable of giving consent—even if the person is neither a minor nor incompetent. Defendant’s argument is premised on a decision of an intermediate state appellate court, State v. Bernal, 713 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). The court explained that it is not convinced that Bernal establishes an obvious error by the district court. Further, the court wrote that Defendant has not produced evidence that most of the States would disagree with the alternative line of reasoning suggested in Bernal: he simply argues that the expanded set of victims identified in Bernal would exceed the set of victims identified in most state statutes and the Model Penal Code. View "United States v. Michael Goforth" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for numerous drug offenses. The court held that the evidence against him was overwhelming, and he does not claim a reasonable probability that, but for the introduction of the challenged evidence, he would not have been found guilty.Defendant operated a website on which he once advertised 4- Fluoroamphetamine, a drug similar to the prescription medicine Adderall. Broussard received numerous orders for the Adderall analogue. But instead of shipping his customers the drug they ordered, he sent them fentanyl, a potent narcotic. As a result, eleven people died, and several others were seriously injured. Police investigated, and a grand jury indicted Defendant on numerous drug offenses. Broussard, representing himself, filed several motions in limine. One of his motions sought exclusion of all evidence “presented to invoke sentiment by expressing how the deaths or injuries of the alleged victims influenced personal experiences.” The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced Broussard to life in prison. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred in allowing the Government to introduce evidence about the victims’ lives.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the challenged evidence was arguably relevant to show that the victims were unlikely to have knowingly sought fentanyl or to have obtained it from some other source. It was also relevant to show that the victims were in good health, making it less likely that they died from some cause other than a fentanyl overdose. And taking into account the evidence’s arguable relevance, its introduction was not obviously unfairly prejudicial. Further, the court wrote that the evidence against him was overwhelming, and he does not claim a reasonable probability that, but for the introduction of the challenged evidence, he would not have been found guilty. View "United States v. Aaron Broussard" on Justia Law