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

Norman Burch was convicted by a jury of attempting to sexually exploit a minor, attempting to receive and receiving child pornography, and committing a felony sex offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender. These actions also violated the terms of his supervised release from a prior conviction for possessing child pornography. Burch was sentenced to a combined 420 months of imprisonment for these convictions and violations.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa presided over Burch’s case. The court admitted evidence of Burch’s 2014 conviction for child pornography under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 414(d)(2)(B). Burch objected to this evidence, but the court overruled his objection. The jury found Burch guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 420 months of imprisonment, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. The court also revoked Burch’s supervised release from his previous conviction, imposing an additional 24 months to run concurrently with some counts and consecutively with others.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Burch challenged the admission of his prior conviction, the sufficiency of the evidence for all counts, and the revocation of his supervised release. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior conviction under Rule 414, as it was relevant to show Burch’s propensity to be sexually interested in minors. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Burch’s convictions on all counts, including the attempted sexual exploitation of a minor and the receipt of child pornography. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, including the revocation of Burch’s supervised release. View "United States v. Burch" on Justia Law

In 2000, Karl Roberts was convicted and sentenced to death in Arkansas state court for the rape and murder of his twelve-year-old niece. Roberts waived his right to challenge his conviction on direct appeal, in state postconviction proceedings, and in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Both the Arkansas state trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found the waiver to be knowing and voluntary. On the day of his scheduled execution in 2004, Roberts moved for a stay of execution, which was granted, and subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, initiating two decades of litigation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied Roberts’s nineteen habeas corpus claims but granted a certificate of appealability (CoA) on three claims: whether Roberts was intellectually disabled, competent to be tried, and competent to waive his direct appeal. The Eighth Circuit expanded the CoA to include two ineffective assistance of counsel claims: failure to investigate and challenge Roberts’s competency to be tried and failure to investigate and present evidence of Roberts’s mental health as mitigating evidence at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of Roberts’s habeas petition. The court held that the Arkansas courts’ findings that Roberts was not intellectually disabled, was competent to stand trial, and was competent to waive his direct appeal were reasonable and supported by the record. The court also found that Roberts’s trial counsel was not ineffective, as the counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there was no prejudice to Roberts. The court concluded that Roberts failed to show that the outcome of his trial would have been different but for the alleged errors by his counsel. View "Roberts v. Payne" on Justia Law

Elmarries Harris was serving a term of supervised release following a prison sentence for a firearms offense. In January 2023, the probation office reported several violations of his release conditions, including an allegation that he assaulted his wife, Erica. At a revocation hearing in June 2023, Harris denied the allegations, and the government presented a violation report and a defense investigator’s report stating Erica denied being assaulted. Harris objected to the hearsay evidence, and the court continued the hearing for additional evidence. In August, the government presented medical records of Erica’s injuries and testimony from a police officer who responded to a 911 call reporting the assault. The officer’s body camera footage and testimony from Erica’s neighbor and a 911 caller were also presented, despite Harris’s objections to hearsay.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri found Harris committed a Grade A violation by committing a domestic assault in the second degree, supported by medical records and corroborating witness statements. The court also found Harris violated other conditions of his release, including failing to answer the probation officer’s questions truthfully, failing to notify the probation officer before changing his residence, and consuming alcohol. Harris was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum, with no supervised release to follow.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Harris argued that the reliance on hearsay evidence violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 and due process. The court concluded that the district court’s decision was consistent with due process, noting the reliability of the evidence and the government’s reasonable explanations for the absence of witnesses. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Two high school brothers, Kameron and Noah Evans, were arrested for disorderly conduct after wearing tactical vests to school. The brothers, who had faced racial bullying, wore the vests on a day when the school was screening an active-shooter video. They were searched by school resource officers, who found no weapons. The principal decided to have them arrested, and they were charged with disorderly conduct. The state court later acquitted them, and the brothers filed a lawsuit under § 1983 and state tort claims against the officers, alleging lack of probable cause and excessive force.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The officers appealed, arguing they had probable cause or at least arguable probable cause to arrest the brothers for disorderly conduct under Arkansas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the brothers, as their actions did not disrupt a lawful assembly or constitute threatening behavior. The court also determined that the officers did not have arguable probable cause, as the brothers were cooperative and their attire did not violate the school dress code. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment claims. However, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force and abuse of process claims, as the plaintiffs failed to respond to these arguments on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Evans v. Dodd" on Justia Law

Derrick Lovell Parker pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The advisory Guidelines range for his sentence was 70 to 87 months. However, the district court varied upward and sentenced Parker to 180 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Parker appealed his sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas initially reviewed the case. The court considered the nature of Parker's offense, which involved a significant amount of heroin and an incident where Parker, armed with a gun, created a "very scary situation" at a residential re-entry center. The district court expressed concern about Parker's potential to repeat his unlawful conduct and decided on a substantial upward variance from the Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Parker contended that the district court gave undue weight to factors already considered by the Guidelines, such as his offense conduct and criminal history. The appellate court noted that while courts should be cautious when supporting a substantial upward variance with factors already reflected in the Guidelines, such factors can still justify a variance. The appellate court found that the district court did not give undue weight to these factors.Parker also argued that the district court failed to consider the need to avoid sentence disparities and mitigating factors like his mental health issues. The appellate court observed that the district court had considered these factors and recommended substance abuse treatment and mental health counseling for Parker. The appellate court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion and affirmed the 180-month sentence. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

Christina Barrera, the office manager at PowerMed, was involved in a scheme to help unqualified individuals, mainly employees of AB InBev, fraudulently obtain disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and private insurers. Patients paid PowerMed $21,600 for a "disability package" that included unnecessary medical tests and assistance in fraudulently applying for disability benefits. Barrera explained the scheme to patients, helped them complete paperwork, and coached them on how to appear disabled. An undercover officer's investigation led to Barrera's indictment and subsequent trial, where a jury found her guilty of conspiracy to defraud the SSA but acquitted her of health care fraud and theft of government funds.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri sentenced Barrera, ordering her to pay restitution to the SSA and private insurers. The presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended $339,407.80 in restitution to the SSA, but the Government argued for additional restitution to private insurers, totaling $203,907.62. The district court adopted the Government's figures, ordering Barrera to pay a total of $543,315.42 in restitution. After Barrera's sentencing, her co-conspirator Clarissa Pogue was sentenced but was not required to pay restitution to private insurers, leading Barrera to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Barrera's criminal conduct included defrauding private insurers as part of the scheme to defraud the SSA, affirming the district court's decision to order restitution to private insurers. However, the court found errors in the calculation of restitution amounts for Prudential and MetLife, vacating those portions and remanding for further proceedings. The court rejected Barrera's argument regarding sentencing disparities with Pogue, emphasizing that the statutory direction to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities refers to national disparities, not differences among co-conspirators. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Barrera" on Justia Law

In March 2022, federal and local law enforcement in Sioux Falls conducted an undercover operation to identify individuals enticing minors online for sexual purposes. Agents created profiles on social media applications, posing as minors. Sky Thomas Roubideaux, a 22-year-old man, engaged in explicit conversations with an undercover agent posing as a minor on the Grindr app. Roubideaux arranged to meet the supposed minor and was arrested upon arrival with items indicating intent for sexual activity.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota convicted Roubideaux of attempted enticement of a minor using the internet, sentencing him to 120 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. Roubideaux appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his Batson challenge, his motion for judgment of acquittal based on entrapment, his motion for a new trial, and his right to present a complete defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no clear error in the district court's Batson ruling, determining that the prosecution's race-neutral explanation for striking a juror was credible. The court also upheld the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, concluding that a reasonable jury could find Roubideaux predisposed to commit the crime. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial, as substantial evidence supported the verdict. Lastly, the court ruled that the exclusion of certain evidence did not violate Roubideaux's right to present a complete defense, as the district court acted within its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Roubideaux's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Roubideaux" on Justia Law

In January 2019, Robert Wolter robbed a bank in Bismarck, North Dakota, taking approximately $6,800. He was later arrested in February 2019 for smuggling bulk cash while attempting to fly to Ghana. Those charges were dismissed in February 2020, and he was subsequently arrested for bank robbery. Wolter was arraigned in July 2020. He filed multiple motions to continue the trial, delaying it significantly. He also requested a psychological evaluation, which further delayed proceedings. Wolter eventually moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming his right to a speedy trial was violated under the Speedy Trial Act (STA) and the Sixth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied Wolter's motion to dismiss. The court found that most delays were excludable under the STA and that the government did not negligently or intentionally cause delays. The court calculated that only 31 days of non-excludable time counted toward the STA. Regarding the Sixth Amendment claim, the court found no evidence of government misconduct and attributed most delays to Wolter. The court also found no demonstrable prejudice to Wolter due to the delays. Wolter was convicted of bank robbery by a jury in January 2023 and sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the delays were either excludable under the STA or attributable to Wolter. The court concluded that only 46 days of non-excludable time counted toward the STA, well below the 70-day limit. Additionally, the court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and determined that Wolter's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were largely due to his own actions and did not result in demonstrable prejudice. View "United States v. Wolter" on Justia Law

James Hanapel was convicted by a jury of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. The case stemmed from an undercover operation during the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota, where a Department of Homeland Security agent posed as a fourteen-year-old girl named "Journey" on a dating app. Hanapel initiated contact with Journey, and after learning her age, he continued to communicate with her, suggesting they meet and engage in sexual activities. Hanapel was arrested when he arrived at the agreed-upon location with condoms.In the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Hanapel raised an entrapment defense, arguing that he was induced by law enforcement to commit the crime. The district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty. Hanapel was sentenced to 120 months in prison, the statutory minimum. He appealed the conviction, contending that he was entrapped as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether Hanapel was induced by the government and whether he was predisposed to commit the crime. The court found that Hanapel initiated contact and was the first to suggest sexual activity. The court also determined that the photo sent by the undercover agent was not overly suggestive and did not constitute inducement. Additionally, the court noted that Hanapel's quick agreement to meet and his possession of condoms indicated predisposition. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could reject the entrapment defense and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hanapel" on Justia Law

In November 2018, 16-year-old S.G. was reported missing but returned to her Iowa high school the next day. She told the school resource officer, Matthew Poirier, that she had spent the weekend in Chicago at "Sweat's" father's home, earning money by packaging cocaine. She later admitted to making money through dates but denied engaging in sex acts. S.G. identified Keith Euring, Sr., also known as "Sweat," in a photo lineup. Her statements to medical personnel and police contained inconsistencies, including the amount of money given to Euring and whether she had sex with him. Law enforcement found evidence linking Euring to S.G.'s trips to Chicago, including phone records and hotel bookings.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa indicted Euring on multiple counts, including sex trafficking of a child. At trial, the government presented testimony from S.G. and her clients, as well as cell phone data suggesting Euring's involvement. S.G. testified that Euring facilitated her dates and took a portion of her earnings. The defense attempted to introduce extrinsic evidence of S.G.'s inconsistent statements and the grand-jury testimony of Dr. Muhammad Ali, who had interacted with S.G. during one of her trips. The district court excluded Dr. Ali's testimony and limited the use of extrinsic evidence, ruling that S.G. had not been given the opportunity to explain her statements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Ali's grand-jury testimony, as the government did not have a similar motive to develop his testimony at that stage. The court also upheld the district court's limitation on extrinsic evidence, interpreting Rule 613(b) to require that a witness be given the opportunity to explain or deny prior inconsistent statements. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Euring's conviction for sex trafficking of a child, affirming the district court's decision. View "United States v. Euring" on Justia Law