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

After being convicted of second-degree sexual assault in Garland County, Arkansas, Harl Garrett was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Garrett requested his attorney, Ben Hooten, to file an appeal, but instead, Hooten moved to withdraw as counsel without filing the notice of appeal. Garrett was not informed of the withdrawal order until after the 30-day window for filing a direct appeal had expired. Garrett attempted to file a pro se notice of appeal and later submitted motions for a belated appeal and to proceed in forma pauperis, but these were denied by both the Garland County Circuit Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court. Garrett subsequently filed a state postconviction petition, which was also denied as untimely.Garrett then filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, raising the claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a direct appeal due to counsel and court failures. The district court denied the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations set by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), finding that the limitations period began when Garrett learned of his attorney’s abandonment and expired before the federal petition was filed. However, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether Garrett’s motion for a belated appeal tolled the AEDPA limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and held that a motion for belated appeal in Arkansas constitutes “collateral review” under AEDPA, thus tolling the statute of limitations while the motion is pending. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Garrett’s federal habeas petition was timely. View "Garrett v. Payne" on Justia Law

Muhammad Arif, the owner of convenience stores in Arkansas, was accused of soliciting a fifteen-year-old girl, the daughter of his handyman, to engage in sexual acts in exchange for money on two occasions in 2019. Both incidents occurred while Arif was driving the girl home in his vehicle. The girl declined his advances, recorded the conversations, and later reported the incidents to her parents and the police. Arif was initially prosecuted under Arkansas state law, but the federal government took over, charging him under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), which criminalizes commercial sex trafficking of a minor “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.”The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas presided over the trial. After the jury found Arif guilty, he moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the government failed to prove the required element that his conduct affected interstate commerce. The district court agreed, granting the motion and concluding that merely driving a car manufactured out of state and giving money to the victim did not constitute an actual effect on interstate commerce as required by precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo, considering whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of the federal statute. The appellate court held that the government’s evidence—Arif’s use of a car manufactured in another state, the transfer of $20, and the use of local roadways—was insufficient to show an actual effect on interstate commerce. The court distinguished this case from others where use of the internet, interstate travel, or communications had a clear impact on commerce. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Arif" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours, police responded to a 911 call from a woman who reported that her boyfriend, Shaquan Coffer, had damaged her car and was armed. Officers located the vehicle, separated the two individuals, and learned from the woman that Coffer was intoxicated and carrying a firearm. While speaking with an officer, Coffer attempted to conceal something in his waistband and then fled on foot. During the chase, officers saw him reach into his pants and heard a metallic sound; they recovered a loaded handgun, painted white, from the ground 11 seconds later. Coffer was apprehended shortly after.Following Coffer’s guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa considered whether to apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury during flight from law enforcement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. The Presentence Investigation Report did not recommend the enhancement, but the government objected. At sentencing, the district court found that, although accidental discharge was unlikely due to the firearm’s safety features, discarding a loaded gun in public created a substantial risk to others, particularly because of the gun’s appearance. The court applied the enhancement, increasing Coffer’s guideline range, and imposed a 71-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in applying the enhancement, as the government failed to show that Coffer’s conduct created more than a speculative risk of harm; there was no evidence of bystanders or actual endangerment beyond the mere act of discarding the firearm. The appellate court vacated Coffer’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding the error in guideline calculation was not harmless. View "United States v. Coffer" on Justia Law

Randolph Jay Forrest worked at a used car dealership in Iowa from 2012 to 2021, where he and the owners engaged in a scheme to roll back odometers on dozens of vehicles, alter their titles, and resell them without disclosing the true mileage. After the scheme was discovered, Forrest was indicted on multiple counts, including odometer tampering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He ultimately pled guilty to one count of wire fraud under a plea agreement, which required him to pay full restitution to all victims harmed by his conduct.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of restitution. Several methodologies were presented: Forrest’s expert suggested calculating loss based on average vehicle value using industry guides, resulting in a total loss of $38,070; the probation office recommended a 40% loss valuation, totaling $76,690; and the government proposed using either the total purchase price paid by victims or the estimated profit from the scheme. The government’s expert, Howard Nusbaum, calculated loss based on the diminished use value of the vehicles, considering the impact of branded titles and misrepresented mileage, arriving at a total loss of $140,178.56. The district court adopted Nusbaum’s methodology, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence, and rejected Forrest’s arguments regarding salvage value and the reliability of purchase prices.On appeal, Forrest challenged the district court’s adoption of Nusbaum’s methodology, arguing it was insufficiently individualized and did not account for the actual value retained by purchasers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the restitution award for abuse of discretion and clear error. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in its loss estimation, given the complexity of the scheme and the evidence presented. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Forrest" on Justia Law

Maurice Rose was convicted by a jury for attempting to kill a government witness in a federal drug and firearms case, intending to prevent the witness’s testimony against an associate. He was found guilty of two offenses: attempting to kill a person to prevent testimony in an official proceeding, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Rose’s conviction resulted in a 330-month sentence, which was previously affirmed on direct appeal.After unsuccessful prior attempts at post-conviction relief, Rose sought permission to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions—Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis—that changed the definition of “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted leave to file without addressing the merits. Rose then moved to vacate his firearm conviction, arguing that, under United States v. Taylor, witness tampering by attempted murder does not qualify as a “crime of violence.” The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the motion, finding that attempted killing remains a crime of violence, but issued a certificate of appealability due to the debatable nature of the issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Rose’s offense was a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of § 924(c). The court held that attempted murder, including attempted killing of a witness under § 1512(a)(1), categorically qualifies as a crime of violence because it requires the attempted use of physical force. The court distinguished this from the Supreme Court’s holding in Taylor, which addressed attempted Hobbs Act robbery. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Rose’s motion to vacate his conviction. View "Rose v. United States" on Justia Law

Charles Sorensen, a retired airline pilot, engaged in a series of actions from 2016 to 2021 to evade federal income taxes for the years 2015 through 2019. His conduct included failing to file tax returns, submitting false returns, making fraudulent refund claims, concealing income and assets, and refusing to cooperate with the IRS. Sorensen used shell companies, such as LAWTAM and LAMP, to hide assets and income, transferred funds to avoid IRS levies, and ultimately converted assets into cryptocurrency to further shield them from collection. He also filed frivolous documents and lawsuits challenging the IRS’s authority. The total tax loss attributed to his actions was $1,861,722.A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota convicted Sorensen on seven counts, including filing false tax returns, tax evasion, failing to file tax returns, and making a false claim against the United States. The district court sentenced him to 41 months in prison. Sorensen appealed, arguing that the district court improperly admitted testimony from several witnesses who were not qualified as experts and erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for sophisticated means.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the sentencing enhancement de novo. The appellate court held that the challenged witness testimony was properly admitted as lay testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, as it was based on firsthand knowledge and personal experience, not specialized expertise. The court also found that the sophisticated means enhancement was appropriately applied, given Sorensen’s use of shell companies, cryptocurrency, and other complex methods to conceal his tax evasion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Thomas Lamont Davis was investigated after selling methamphetamine to a confidential source on two occasions in March 2022. Law enforcement searched his residence in Des Moines, Iowa, and found firearms, large quantities of methamphetamine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was later involved in two separate high-speed chases while attempting to evade arrest, during which he possessed methamphetamine and cash. In one incident, Davis struggled with officers and bit one officer’s finger, causing injury that required stitches.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa presided over Davis’s trial. Davis moved to exclude evidence of his prior Iowa felony convictions for drug and firearm offenses, but the district court denied the motion and admitted the convictions with a limiting instruction. A jury found Davis guilty on all counts, including drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and firearm offenses. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises and a six-level enhancement for assaulting a law enforcement officer, resulting in a 360-month prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Davis’s challenges to the admission of his prior convictions and the sentencing enhancements. The court held that the prior convictions were properly admitted for permissible purposes such as knowledge and intent, and the limiting instruction mitigated any risk of unfair prejudice. The court also found that the evidence supported the enhancements for maintaining a drug premises and for assaulting an officer, and that there was no impermissible double counting. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts after sexually abusing a female relative over a period of years, beginning when she was eight years old and continuing until she turned eighteen. He produced nude photographs and videos of the victim, including recordings of sexual assaults. Following his arrest, he was indicted on eight counts. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child in exchange for the government’s dismissal of the remaining counts and a recommendation of a 25-year sentence. The agreement also allowed the defendant to recommend a 20-year sentence.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota accepted the plea but ultimately sentenced the defendant to 45 years’ imprisonment, which was within the applicable Guidelines range of 30 to 60 years. At sentencing, the government advocated for a 25-year sentence, using language such as “restrict its recommendation to 25 years” and “ask the court to impose no less than 25 years.” The defendant did not object to the government’s phrasing at the time. The district court considered the relevant statutory factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offense, the need for just punishment, and the protection of the community, before imposing the sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the government breached the plea agreement and whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Applying plain error review, the court held that the government’s statements did not breach the plea agreement, as they were consistent with its obligation to recommend a 25-year sentence. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 45-year sentence, as it properly considered all relevant factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant began communicating online with an individual he believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl named Stella, who was actually an undercover police officer. Their conversations quickly became sexual, and they arranged to meet in person, at which point the defendant was arrested. After his arrest and release on pretrial supervision, the defendant deleted messages and blocked accounts of other purported minors, who were also undercover officers. Additionally, the defendant had been communicating with a real fourteen-year-old girl, Y.F., from whom he received sexually explicit images and with whom he had a prior acquaintance.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota presided over the trial. The government introduced evidence of the defendant’s communications with other undercover accounts as Rule 404(b) evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, including attempted sexual exploitation and enticement of a minor, and receipt of child pornography. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed several issues. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the defendant knew Y.F. was a minor, based on his prior relationship with her and other circumstantial evidence. The court also found that, even if the admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence was erroneous, any error was harmless given the strength of the government’s case. However, the Eighth Circuit determined that the district court may have improperly considered the trauma to the victim caused by the defendant exercising his right to trial when imposing the life sentence. As a result, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Barrios" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact involving two minor victims, Sarah and Jane, who were the daughters of his then-girlfriend. The alleged conduct occurred while the defendant lived with the family on the Yankton Sioux Reservation. The incidents included sexual acts with Sarah, beginning when she was 14, and inappropriate sexual contact and conversations with Jane when she was 14. The allegations came to light after one of the girls disclosed the conduct to her aunt, which led to a family meeting and subsequent involvement of tribal child protection services and the FBI. All three children were interviewed, and the defendant denied the allegations, suggesting they were fabricated due to family tensions.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota conducted a jury trial in April 2024. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The district court imposed concurrent sentences for the counts involving Sarah and a consecutive sentence for the count involving Jane, totaling 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. During trial, the court admitted certain out-of-court statements made by the victims and their family members, over the defendant’s objections, and provided limiting instructions to the jury regarding the purpose of these statements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from the victims’ aunt and grandmother, and whether any such error was harmless. The Eighth Circuit held that while the district court clearly abused its discretion by allowing testimony that went beyond the limited nonhearsay purpose and improperly bolstered the victims’ credibility, the error was harmless. The court found the improper testimony was cumulative of the victims’ in-court testimony and did not substantially influence the verdict. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Mousseaux" on Justia Law