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

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in 2006. While on bail awaiting sentencing, Defendant and his brother were involved in a bar fight, during which Defendant shot and killed one man and assaulted another. Defendant was charged with murder, assault, and armed criminal action in state court.The following year Defendant was sentenced on the federal drug charges. The district court calculated a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category II, resulting in a Sentencing Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment. The government moved for an upward departure under USSG Secs. 4A1.3 and 5K2.0(a)(2). The district court heard evidence about the bar fight, including a video of the altercation and testimony from a police detective, and granted the motion. The court sentenced Defendant to 480 months of imprisonment, the then-applicable statutory maximum. Defendant was subsequently acquitted of the charges related to the bar fight.In 2013, Defendant moved for a sentencing reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 3582(c). The district court granted the motion, but only reduced Defendant's sentence to 240 months. The court denied Defendant's subsequent sentencing reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Defendant appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's s motion, finding that the district court conducted a complete review of Defendant's motion and provided a reasonable basis for its decision. View "United States v. Anthony Sisco" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to the charge of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 80 months imprisonment plus 4 years supervised release. The government dropped the charges related to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.The district court calculated Defendant's total offense level as 34 with a criminal history category of II, resulting in a Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. The district court varied downward, sentencing Defendant to 80 months imprisonment to be followed by a term of 4 years supervised release.Defendant appealed, claiming that the district court erred in using the methamphetamine to calculate her guideline sentence. The district court did not err in determining that quantities of methamphetamine were attributable to Defendant based on its credibility findings and the district court's credibility findings are virtually unassailable on appeal and were not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Jennifer Buford" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with firearm and drug charges after an officer claimed to see a bag of drugs in Defendant's car that was in plain view. In a motion to suppress, the officer testified inconsistently with the radio call. However, the district court found the officer credible and denied Defendant's motion. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the district court should not have credited the officer's testimony.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, finding that the district court was entitled to credit the police officer's testimony over Defendant's. In finding that the drugs were in plain view, the district court implicitly credited the officer's testimony over his radio call. While the two statements were at odds, the court’s credibility determination did not amount to clear error. View "United States v. Lamont White" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault in Arkansas state court in February 2003, an offense requiring him to register under the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act of 1997. One of Defendant's registration requirements was that he notify his probation officer of intended international travel 21 days in advance. However, after registering in 2020, Defendant left the country without informing his probation officer. Upon his return, Defendant was charged with knowingly failing to provide information and then engaging in intended travel in foreign commerce.Defendant's guidelines were 18 to 24 months, but the government successfully sought an upward variance, resulting in a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment. The court also imposed a term of 15 years of supervised release with up to 36 months of home detention as a special condition of supervised release. Defendant appealed his sentence.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding that any error by the district court did not affect Defendant's substantial rights because the court indicated it would have imposed the same term as an upward variance. View "United States v. Brian Floss" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on seven counts of forging or counterfeiting postage meter stamps and three counts of smuggling the district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $256,441.78 in restitution to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). Defendant appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the district court’s estimate of the face value of the counterfeit stamps for purposes of calculating his advisory sentencing guidelines range, the amount of restitution ordered, and the substantive reasonableness of his prison sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, but vacated the district court’s restitution order and remanded for the district court to limit the restitution award to the loss due to forgery, and otherwise affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The court held that Defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge fails as to all counts if it is construed as a request for a judgment of acquittal. And it fares no better if construed as a request for a new trial. To prevail on this claim, even assuming he did not forfeit it, Defendant would need to show that “the evidence weigh[ed] heavily” against the verdict. Here, the evidence did not weigh heavily against the verdict but rather provided ample support for it. Moreover, the court found that neither statute of conviction lists as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity. Therefore, restitution to the USPS should have been limited to “the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of” Defendant’s forgery convictions. View "United States v. Bradley Matheny" on Justia Law

Defendant and co-Defendant participated in a Texas-based conspiracy to burglarize ATMs in Arkansas and Oklahoma, among other states. The district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and $84,626 in restitution. It sentenced co-Defendant to 60 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and $84,626 in restitution. In this consolidated appeal, both Defendants challenge the procedural reasonableness of their sentences, Defendant appeals his sentence as substantively unreasonable, and co-Defendant challenges the restitution amount.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court explained that it was satisfied that the district court considered the Section 3553(a) factors in determining the sentence. Further, the district court explained that Defendant’s single prior burglary conviction didn’t adequately reflect his extensive history of theft, burglary, and participation in organized crimes. Given these considerations, the court did not abuse its discretion.   Regarding co-Defendant’s argument that the district court procedurally erred by including the Oklahoma burglaries in its Guidelines loss amount calculation, the court held the record as a whole supports the district court’s decision to hold him responsible for the conspiracy’s crimes there, regardless of whether he was present when they were committed. Finally, even assuming that the district court erred by using the replacement value instead of the fair market value, that error is not plain. View "United States v. James Miller, Jr." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of ammunition-nine cartridge cases found at the scene of a shooting. The district court1 sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum sentence, to be served consecutively to any undischarged term of state court sentences Defendant was serving for offenses arising out of the same incident.   He appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing the district court (i) abused its discretion in admitting lay opinion testimony by a detective of the Des Moines Police Department about what the detective saw on convenience store surveillance videos; (ii) erred at sentencing in cross-referencing to the guidelines base offense level for attempted second-degree murder, USSG Section 2A2.1; and (iii) abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment convicting and sentencing Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment. The court held that Rule 701 permits the introduction of lay opinion testimony in just such circumstances. Here, there was no clear error. Defendant intervened in an altercation, firing a gun nine times at close range and striking a victim seven times. Like the conduct in United States v. Comly, this unprovoked attack with a deadly weapon “demonstrated an intent to kill or, at the very least, an act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life.”  Finally, the court concluded that it agrees with the government that the district court did not abuse its “broad discretion to order a consecutive sentence to an undischarged sentence.” View "United States v. Ceeron Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant, who is not an enrolled member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, pled guilty to one count of wildlife trafficking, in violation of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 3372(a)(1) and 3373(d)(2) (Count 1), and one count of trespass on Indian land, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1165 (Count 2), for entering the Red Lake Indian Reservation (the Reservation), removing the head of a bear that he had killed two days before, and transporting the bear’s head off the Reservation. The district court sentenced Appellant to 15 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed concluding that the district court did not commit a procedural error in increasing Appellant’s base offense level pursuant to Section 2Q2.1(b)(1)(B).  The court wrote that assuming arguendo that Section 2Q2.1(b)(1)(B) refers to applicable prior violations, when considering both the offense and relevant conduct, Appellant has committed a pattern of prior violations similar to the instant Lacey Act violation. The court explained Appellant violated Section 1165 when he entered the Reservation for the purpose of hunting a bear, and he again violated Section 1165 when he entered the Reservation on September 3rd to remove the bear’s head from the Reservation. The court, therefore, concluded Appellant’s repeated violation of Section 1165 demonstrates a “pattern of similar violations” sufficient to warrant application of Section 2Q2.1(b)(1)(B). View "United States v. Brett James Stimac" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant's pre-sentence report indicated he had committed three violent felonies: a 2004 conviction for burglary; a 2006 conviction for battery; and a 2006 conviction for battery and possession of a firearm. Both 2006 offenses occurred on the same date. At sentencing, the district court found that Defendant was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 180 months incarceration, the statutory maximum.Defendant appealed, arguing that because both 2006 convictions occurred on the same date, they should be considered a single predicate offense under the ACCA.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence. After considering (1) the time lapse between offenses, (2) the physical distance between their occurrence, and (3) their lack of overall substantive continuity, the court concluded that, for the purposes of the ACCA, the offenses were not committed on the "same occasion." View "United States v. Christopher Stowell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, two additional evidentiary rulings, and the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(a)(3).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Richardson because the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest was sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that Defendant committed the offense of indecent exposure.   Further, the court concluded that the officers properly searched Defendant’s person and his car after he was arrested. The search of Defendant’s person was a proper search incident to arrest. The search of the CR-V was a proper probationary search because Defendant was subject to a probationary search condition and there was reasonable suspicion to believe that he possessed firearms based on the pistol magazine found in his pocket or that he violated the law by committing the offense of indecent exposure, both of which were prohibited by his probation conditions.   Moreover, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Government to introduce evidence about Defendant’s six prior convictions. Contrary to Defendant’s claim, the probative value of the evidence of his prior convictions was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Finally, the court explained it need not decide whether North Dakota robbery qualifies as a crime of violence because any alleged error was harmless. View "United States v. LaSamuel Richardson, III" on Justia Law