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

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

Robert Gafford, a rural mail carrier for the United States Postal Service in Scott County, Missouri, was observed by residents Karen and Doug Ressel to be failing to deliver their mail over several months in 2021 and 2022. Despite road construction initially being suspected as the cause, the problem persisted after construction ended. The Ressels reported the issue to postal supervisors, who repeatedly instructed Gafford to deliver the mail, but he claimed the mailbox location was unsafe. Both a supervisor and a union representative inspected the mailbox and found it safe. The Ressels used the USPS “Informed Delivery” service and an Apple AirTag to track their mail, ultimately discovering that undelivered mail was ending up at Gafford’s residence. A postal inspector then conducted a controlled test with a tracking device, which led to the discovery of the Ressels’ mail in Gafford’s personal vehicle.A grand jury indicted Gafford for delay and embezzlement of mail under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1703(a) and 1709. At trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, a jury found Gafford guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced him to fourteen months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Gafford’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of testimony regarding the AirTag device, and the length of his sentence. The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for both convictions, finding that a reasonable jury could infer Gafford’s intent to convert the mail for his own use and that he unlawfully detained the mail. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting the AirTag testimony and determined that sentencing challenges were moot due to Gafford’s release. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Gafford" on Justia Law

After being stopped by police in Council Bluffs, Iowa, for running a red light, George Kitchen was approached by officers who detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from his vehicle. When informed that his vehicle would be searched, Kitchen initially agreed but then fled the scene, leading officers on a high-speed chase. During the pursuit, law enforcement observed packages being thrown from the vehicle, which were later recovered and found to contain significant quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine. Kitchen and his passenger were apprehended after police used stop sticks to disable the vehicle. A search of Kitchen and his car uncovered cash, drug paraphernalia, and cell phones with evidence of drug transactions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Kitchen’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the initial stop was justified by the observed traffic violation and that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause to extend the stop and search the vehicle. After a jury trial, Kitchen was convicted on both counts of drug possession with intent to distribute and sentenced to 260 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion for clear error regarding factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions. The appellate court held that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and that the district court’s credibility determinations regarding the officer’s testimony were not clearly erroneous. The court also upheld the admission of co-conspirator hearsay and other bad act evidence, finding no abuse of discretion and determining that any potential error was harmless given the weight of the evidence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Kitchen’s convictions. View "United States v. Kitchen" on Justia Law

Investigators in Iowa and Minnesota identified an individual as a customer of methamphetamine distributors and, during a search of his home, found a loaded handgun, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. The individual admitted to purchasing and distributing significant quantities of methamphetamine and to buying the firearm. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy charge, and the government agreed to dismiss the firearm charge. The parties stipulated that a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon applied.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa adopted the presentence report’s calculation, which included the firearm enhancement, and denied the defendant’s request for safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum sentence. The court found that the defendant could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not possess a firearm in connection with the drug offense, citing the proximity of the gun to the drugs and the lack of an alternative explanation for possessing the firearm. The court sentenced the defendant to the mandatory minimum of 120 months after considering mitigating factors and granting a downward variance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the safety-valve statute de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding the defendant ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2) and USSG § 5C1.2(a)(2), because the defendant failed to prove that he did not possess a firearm in connection with the drug offense. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

During a protest in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd, Montez Lee, Jr. set fire to a pawn shop that had already been looted. Law enforcement later discovered the body of a man, O.L.S., in the remains of the building. Lee was charged with arson of property used in interstate commerce and pleaded guilty. At sentencing, the parties initially prepared to contest whether Lee’s actions caused O.L.S.’s death, which would have resulted in a significant sentencing enhancement. However, Lee’s attorney ultimately stipulated to the enhancement, and Lee was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The district court deferred a determination of restitution, as no victim had yet requested it, and entered an initial judgment reflecting this deferral.Subsequently, the parties agreed that Lee would pay $842 in restitution, and the district court amended the judgment several months later to include this obligation. Lee did not appeal either the initial or amended judgment. Over a year after the amended judgment, Lee filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the motion as untimely, holding that the one-year limitations period began with the initial judgment, not the amended judgment that added restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, for purposes of § 2255(f)(1), a judgment of conviction does not become final until all components of the sentence, including restitution, are determined and the time for direct appeal has expired. Therefore, the limitations period for Lee’s § 2255 motion began after the amended judgment was entered. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, concluding that Lee’s motion was timely. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

On July 2, 2022, Antonio Mashawn Airhart and his girlfriend discovered her borrowed car had been vandalized. Suspecting a neighbor’s involvement, a confrontation ensued later that day between Airhart and the neighbor’s brother, Martin Diaz, outside the neighbor’s apartment. During the altercation, Airhart was seen with a firearm, and Diaz testified that Airhart shot him in the face. Diaz returned fire with his own weapon. Law enforcement recovered shell casings from two types of ammunition at the scene and found an empty ammunition box and loose rounds in the apartment where Airhart was staying, with a fingerprint matching Airhart on the box.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Airhart’s motion to exclude evidence of the empty ammunition box and loose rounds, and a jury convicted him of unlawful possession of ammunition after a prior felony and misdemeanor crime of violence. The district court sentenced Airhart to 180 months in custody and three years of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Airhart challenged the admission of the ammunition evidence and certain lay opinion testimony by a detective, and argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Eighth Circuit found that the district court erred in admitting the ammunition evidence, as it was neither intrinsic to the charged offense nor properly admitted under Rule 404(b), and that the detective’s lay opinion testimony was inadmissible. However, the court held both errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony and corroborating video and physical evidence. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Airhart" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty in 2018 to conspiracy to distribute heroin, the defendant served a 48-month sentence and began supervised release in 2023. During his initial term of supervision, he was charged with sex trafficking offenses, which he argued violated a “No Further Prosecution” clause in his plea agreement. Although the district court initially denied his motion to dismiss those charges, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit later held that the plea agreement barred the new charges, vacated his sex trafficking convictions, and ordered his release. Upon release, the district court imposed modified and additional special conditions of supervised release, citing evidence of prior sex trafficking and violent conduct.Following his release, the defendant repeatedly violated the terms of his supervised release. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa revoked his supervision twice, each time imposing new terms of incarceration and supervised release, and reimposing or adding special conditions, including GPS monitoring, a curfew, and restrictions on contact with minors. The defendant did not appeal the first revocation judgment, but after the second revocation and reimposition of conditions, he objected to certain conditions and appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s imposition of the challenged conditions for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing GPS monitoring and curfew, given the defendant’s extensive violations and history of evading supervision. The court also upheld the restriction on unapproved contact with minors, finding it reasonably tailored in light of evidence of past conduct and allowing for contact with prior approval. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Marcus Rexrode, a convicted felon, arranged to sell marijuana to a sixteen-year-old, J.M. During the transaction, J.M. attempted to rob Rexrode at gunpoint, and J.M.’s companion also produced a firearm and fired at Rexrode. Rexrode fled while shooting back, fatally wounding J.M. Rexrode subsequently entered a plea agreement with the government, pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss a murder charge. The plea agreement included a joint recommendation for a 180-month sentence, acknowledged the possibility of guideline departures, and reserved both parties’ rights to object to any departures.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which calculated a guidelines range of 41 to 51 months but identified grounds for upward departures due to the offense resulting in death and uncharged conduct. At sentencing, the court applied these departures, raising the guidelines range to 97 to 121 months, and imposed a 120-month sentence—substantially below the joint recommendation. Rexrode appealed, arguing procedural error in applying the departures and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was no procedural error, as Rexrode had agreed to the possibility of departures and did not object to the Presentence Investigation Report or the departures at sentencing. The court also found that any error would have been harmless, as the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. Additionally, the court determined that Rexrode had waived his right to appeal the sentence, as it fell within the adjusted guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Rexrode" on Justia Law

In August 2022, a Rosebud Sioux Tribe police officer stopped a black Chevy Impala after observing it attempt to avoid his patrol car and learning that its license plates were registered to a different vehicle. The driver, Lydia Stead, and the passenger, Tevin Thin Elk, Sr., could not provide ownership documents. While the officer checked the vehicle’s VIN and their licenses, another officer arrived with a trained drug-detection dog, Iwan. During the stop, Iwan alerted to the presence of narcotics in the vehicle. Shortly after, the officer learned that Stead had an outstanding warrant and arrested both Stead and Thin Elk. A search of the vehicle revealed a firearm, and a search of Thin Elk uncovered marijuana and a pen testing positive for methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota held two hearings on Thin Elk’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches. The court denied the motion, finding that Thin Elk lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search as a mere passenger, that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged, and that the canine alert provided probable cause for the search. The court credited the officers’ testimony and found the drug-detection dog to be reliable, despite expert testimony to the contrary.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that Thin Elk did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, the stop was not unlawfully extended, and the dog’s alert established probable cause for the search. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s credibility determinations regarding the officers and the reliability of the canine. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Tevin Thin Elk, Sr." on Justia Law