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

Rodney Dale Smith was found by law enforcement slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle, which was blocking the roadway. Upon investigation, officers discovered that Smith had a suspended driver’s license and subsequently arrested him. During an inventory search of his vehicle, officers found a glass smoking pipe and a functional pipe bomb. Smith was charged with possession of an unregistered firearm and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced Smith to 37 months’ imprisonment. The court calculated his offense level and criminal history category, resulting in a Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months. The government recommended 36 months, while the defense requested 18 months, emphasizing Smith’s drug addiction and need for treatment. The district court imposed a 37-month sentence, stating that the length was chosen to allow Smith to complete the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) while in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Smith argued that the district court erred by basing the length of his sentence on his need for rehabilitation, which is prohibited by Tapia v. United States. The Eighth Circuit agreed, finding that the district court plainly erred by considering Smith’s need for rehabilitation when determining the sentence length. The court noted that the district court’s focus on Smith’s addiction and need for treatment, and its explicit statement that the sentence length was chosen to allow Smith to complete RDAP, violated Tapia.The Eighth Circuit vacated Smith’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with Tapia, which prohibits imposing or lengthening a prison sentence to promote rehabilitation. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Raymond Antonio Lewis was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The incident occurred on December 20, 2018, when Officer John Buford responded to a report of shots fired and encountered Lewis, who was found with firearms and methamphetamine. Lewis was identified as a felon and arrested.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas handled the case. Lewis was indicted in May 2021, with a superseding indictment in November 2022. His trial was delayed multiple times due to continuance requests by his counsel and other procedural matters. Lewis filed motions to suppress Officer Buford’s testimony and to sever the trial, both of which were denied by the district court. The jury found Lewis guilty on two counts but acquitted him on a third count of possessing firearms in furtherance of drug distribution. He was sentenced to 156 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Lewis argued that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motions, that the preindictment delay violated his Fifth Amendment rights, that the delay between indictment and trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the officer’s testimony despite the policy violation, that the denial of the motion to sever was not an abuse of discretion, that the preindictment delay did not violate due process, and that the delay in trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Eugene Hollow Horn Bear was convicted by a jury of two counts of abusive sexual contact and pled guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. Hollow Horn Bear appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his convictions, a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota initially handled the case. Hollow Horn Bear was indicted on multiple counts, including sexual abuse and failure to register as a sex offender. The district court severed the SORNA counts, and Hollow Horn Bear was tried on the sexual abuse counts. He was acquitted of sexual abuse of a person incapable of consent but convicted of two counts of abusive sexual contact. He later pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, and the court dismissed the remaining count. At sentencing, the court considered his criminal history and mitigating factors but imposed a total term of 108 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as the jury was entitled to believe the testimony of the witnesses despite their intoxication. The court also found no Double Jeopardy violation, as each act of sexual contact constituted a separate offense under the relevant statutes. Finally, the court determined that the sentence was substantively reasonable, given the serious nature of the offense and the district court’s consideration of the mitigating factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. View "United States v. Hollow Horn Bear" on Justia Law

Two children, a nine-year-old girl and her eight-year-old brother, reported sexual abuse by their stepfather, who lived with them and their mother. After the children disclosed the abuse to a nurse practitioner, law enforcement obtained consent to search the family’s residence, seizing a red iPhone and the children’s bedding. Investigators discovered that the stepfather had shared child pornography via the Mega file-sharing service. Upon questioning, he admitted ownership of the phone, provided its password, and consented to its search. Investigators found videos on the phone and Mega account depicting the children in sexually explicit situations, with the stepfather’s voice directing them. DNA evidence linked him to semen found on the children’s bedding.A grand jury indicted the stepfather on two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of committing those offenses while on the sex offender registry, and one count of possession of child pornography. After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the court found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to 720 months in prison and a life term of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for two counts, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, even though the district court did not explicitly address each of the Dost factors for lascivious exhibition. The court also found no abuse of discretion or plain error in the admission of testimony from a prior victim, the nurse practitioner, or the forensic scientist, nor in the admission of a partially completed Miranda waiver form. The sentence was deemed reasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. En Maati" on Justia Law

Adan Shamburger pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. Initially, the district court determined an advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment but varied upward and imposed a 48-month sentence, citing the lethality of fentanyl, Shamburger's distribution activities, violent tendencies, high risk of recidivism, and criminal history. Following a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which altered the calculation of criminal history scores, Shamburger's advisory guideline range was reduced to 24-30 months. Consequently, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas initially sentenced Shamburger to 48 months. After the Sentencing Commission's Amendment 821, which was made retroactive, the district court reduced his sentence to 46 months. Shamburger argued that the reduction was unreasonable and that the court should have shortened his sentence further, given the new advisory guideline range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Shamburger's sentence by only two months. The court explained that there is no presumption that a sentence reduction must be proportional to the original sentence within the new advisory range. The district court's decision to impose a sentence close to the original term, despite the lower amended guideline range, was deemed permissible. The appellate court also found no procedural error, as the district court adequately explained its reasoning by referencing its previous discussion of the § 3553(a) factors and the seriousness of the offense conduct. View "United States v. Shamburger" on Justia Law

Federal agents conducted a "buy-bust" operation in Des Moines, Iowa, targeting Aldo Ali Cordova Perez, Jr., who was driving a gold Dodge Durango. During the operation, Cordova Perez attempted to flee, leading to a high-speed chase that ended with his arrest. Officers found a large quantity of methamphetamine in his vehicle and a small bag of marijuana in his pocket. Cordova Perez admitted to using marijuana daily and owning a .22-caliber rifle, which was found in his home.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa tried Cordova Perez on multiple charges, including possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possessing a firearm as an unlawful drug user. The jury acquitted him of all charges except for the firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court denied his motion for acquittal, finding the statute constitutional both facially and as applied, and sentenced him to 36 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, citing the need to reassess the as-applied challenge in light of United States v. Cooper. The court instructed the district court to determine whether Cordova Perez's marijuana use caused him to act dangerously or posed a credible threat to others' safety with a firearm. The court emphasized that the district court should make explicit findings on whether his conduct was consistent with historical firearm regulations. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

William Dahl was charged with production and receipt of child pornography based on two separate incidents. In the first, Dahl, then 36, communicated with a 16-year-old girl, S, via social media, provided her with gifts, and received a nude video from her over Snapchat. In the second incident, Dahl engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the mother of a seven-year-old girl, M, who then produced and sent Dahl images of M’s genitals. Dahl admitted to receiving both the video and the images but claimed he intended to turn the images over to police and believed S was 17.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri conducted a bench trial and found Dahl guilty of production of child pornography and two counts of receipt of child pornography. At sentencing, the district court ordered Dahl’s federal sentence to run consecutively to sentences in six pending Missouri state cases. However, the record was unclear as to whether the court intended the federal sentence to run consecutively to state sentences involving the same victims or relevant conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing order. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the materials received by Dahl constituted child pornography under federal law, applying the Dost factors as required by circuit precedent. The court affirmed Dahl’s convictions. However, because of ambiguity regarding whether the federal sentence was intended to run consecutively to all state sentences or only those unrelated to the federal offenses, the Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for the district court to clarify its sentencing intent. View "United States v. Dahl" on Justia Law

Miguel Alcantar Mercado participated in a drug distribution operation, possessing and distributing over 1,300 grams of heroin and wiring more than $45,000 in drug proceeds. He pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The United States Probation Office calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment, factoring in his criminal history. The district court sentenced him to 204 months, six months below the Guidelines range, considering both the seriousness of the offense and mitigating factors such as his modest criminal history and family support.Following a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the calculation of criminal history categories, Alcantar Mercado’s criminal history category was reduced from III to II, making his new Guidelines range 188 to 235 months. This made him eligible for a discretionary sentence reduction. The Probation Office identified him as eligible, noting his good behavior and participation in rehabilitative programs. However, the district court declined to modify his sentence, stating that the variance he received was consistent with the new Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court had considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and noted Alcantar Mercado’s good behavior. The appellate court held that the district court was not required to provide a lengthy explanation for its decision and that its consideration of the factors was sufficient. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the decision was within the permissible range of discretion. View "United States v. Mercado" on Justia Law

Britt Lander was stopped by police in June 2022, and drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine were found in his vehicle. After being read his Miranda rights, Lander requested the presence of his partner, whom he jokingly referred to as his attorney. The officer denied this request and continued the interrogation, during which Lander made incriminating statements about his involvement in methamphetamine trafficking. Lander was subsequently indicted for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine after a prior felony drug conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Lander's motion to suppress his statements, concluding that his waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary and that his request for his partner was not a clear invocation of his right to counsel. The court also denied his motion for a new trial, finding the evidence against him, including testimony from co-conspirators and video evidence, sufficient to support the conviction. Lander was sentenced to 360 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court held that Lander's waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary, as he appeared to understand the situation despite his claims of intoxication and sleep deprivation. The court also found that Lander's request for his partner was not a clear and unequivocal request for an attorney. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of Lander's motion for a new trial, noting that the testimony of cooperating witnesses was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. Finally, the court found no error in the district court's sentencing calculation and determined that the 360-month sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Lander" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2022, law enforcement in Illinois and Iowa investigated Kpangbala Benyan Blamah after two shooting incidents involving vehicles linked to him. On June 27, a black Toyota Camry was involved in a shooting in Rock Island, Illinois. On August 4, a shooting occurred in Davenport, Iowa, involving a vehicle registered to Blamah’s ex-girlfriend. On August 7, officers observed the Camry at Blamah’s ex-girlfriend’s residence, leading to a chase where Blamah fled, leaving behind a loaded Glock 9mm handgun and several iPhones. A search of the Camry revealed marijuana, a digital scale, and packaging material. Further investigation linked Blamah to drug trafficking activities, including shipping packages containing cocaine from California to Iowa.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa convicted Blamah of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of firearms. The jury found the conspiracy involved five or more kilograms of cocaine. Blamah was sentenced to 360 months in prison. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of evidence from the two shootings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the conspiracy involved more than five kilograms of cocaine, based on intercepted packages, testimony, and text messages. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the firearm possession conviction, noting the proximity of firearms to drugs and expert testimony on the use of firearms in drug trafficking. The court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence from the shootings, as it was intrinsic to the charged offenses. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Blamah" on Justia Law