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

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court1 determined that Defendant qualified for the enhanced statutory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Defendant appealed the district court’s application of the ACCA enhancement.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that under the ACCA, a felon who possesses a firearm is subject to a minimum sentence of fifteen years if he has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses “committed on occasions different from one another.” Here, The PSR notes that Defendant “admitted to selling drugs to an undercover officer on three separate occasions.” Although Defendant objected to his sentence enhancement, Defendant never objected to this separate-occasions statement in the PSR, so the district court properly accepted it as true. The court also disagreed with Defendant that the rule of lenity requires the court to construe the ACCA’s occasions clause in his favor. The rule of lenity states that ambiguities in criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of the defendant. However, the court considers the rule of lenity only when, after employing all other tools of construction, “a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute” remains. Here, Defendant committed at least three (if not four) qualifying offenses occurring on separate occasions, so there is no ambiguity in the statute as applied to Defendant. View "United States v. Damon Buford" on Justia Law

After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Defendant’s conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court sentenced Defendant to 126 months imprisonment, varying upward six months from the mandatory minimum of 120 months, his advisory guidelines range. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, raising three Fourth Amendment issues emanating from a postal inspector’s warrantless seizure of an undeliverable Express Mail package sent to “Defendant Rm 512” at a hotel in Des Moines, Iowa. He also appealed his sentence, arguing it is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately justify the upward variance.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Here, the district court carefully explained why it imposed a six-month upward variance, stating that a mandatory minimum sentence would “ignore” Defendant’s “ridiculously problematic” and “offensive” behavior during his pre-sentence detention for this offense. The court did not abuse its discretion by varying upward to account for dozens of serious security and disciplinary violations. View "United States v. Manuel Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and subsequently appealed. Defendant argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was unlawfully arrested in his home, and the attenuation doctrine does not apply to render the evidence that was seized during a subsequent search admissible against him.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that under the circumstances, it cannot say the district court committed a clear error in finding that Defendant’s consent to search was voluntary. The court expressly considered the relevant factors for assessing voluntariness before reaching its conclusion, including those weighing against a finding of voluntary consent. Further, the court wrote that weighing the appropriate factors, it concluded that Defendant’s voluntary consent to the search of his residence was sufficient to purge the taint of the officers’ initial unlawful conduct. The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the December 14, 2019, search. View "United States v. Gary Harris" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendants of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. After the trial, the district court denied their motions for acquittal. Defendants appealed, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict; there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Defendant satisfied each element of the conspiracy charge beyond a reasonable doubt. First, an agreement was proven from the distribution of meth supplied by shipments from Defendants. Second, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that Defendant knew of the conspiracy by shipping a package to a conspirator; tracking packages sent to Rapid City—at least one with meth; and receiving payments from the conspirator. Third, Defendant intended to join the conspiracy by these facts and circumstances.   Further, the court held that sufficient evidence supported co-Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of meth. First, as evidence of an agreement, the informant testified that the conspirator received his meth from co-Defendant and in return, co-Defendant received several wire payments. Second, co-Defendant knew of the conspiracy by providing his cell phone number for the informant’s payments. Third, based on all the facts and circumstances, co-Defendant knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy. Since the informant alone purchased over 500 grams of meth from the conspirator, the jury reasonably found a conspiracy to distribute over 500 grams of a controlled substance. View "United States v. Kirbesha Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to narcotics and ammunition charges after the trail court denied his motion to suppress GPS locational data and subsequent post0-Miranda statements made to detectivews. Law enforcement, working with a confidential informant (CI), installed a GPS tracker on the CI's vehicle. Subsequently, Defendant borrowed CI's vehicle, which led to his arrest.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location and movements in a borrowed vehicle. View "United States v. Joshua Dewilfond" on Justia Law

Defendant served a 48-month sentence for use of interstate facilities to promote prostitution and began a three-year term of supervised release in October 2020. The district court first revoked supervised release on August 31, 2021, when Defendant admitted drug use and failure to participate in required drug counseling; Defendant began a 24-month term of supervised release that day.   His probation officer petitioned the court to issue a warrant, alleging numerous violations of supervised release. At the conclusion of a revocation hearing, the court found that Defendant committed the violations, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release. Defendant appealed the revocation sentence, arguing the court violated his due process right to confront witnesses at the revocation hearing and imposed additional special conditions of supervised release that are substantively unreasonable.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the facts recited in the warrant petition with the author present to testify, and Defendant’s testimony corroborating some of the alleged Grade C violations, including admissions he had not complied with sex offender registration requirements and had tested positive for cocaine use, were ample evidence supporting the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release. Further, the court found that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion when it imposed additional conditions addressing what the court described as Defendant’s “high-risk behavior” and “continued disregard for the conditions imposed.” View "United States v. La'Ron Clower" on Justia Law

Defendant walked away from the Fort Des Moines Residential Reentry Center (RRC), where he had been placed during the supervised release portion of his sentence for a firearms violation. He was later arrested and charged with escape. At his revocation sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced him to 12 months and 1 day for the escape, to be served consecutively with his existing sentence. He appealed both the length of the sentence and its consecutive imposition.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, the district court correctly calculated Defendant’s Guidelines range for his offense and criminal history as 8 to 14 months. It also considered the Section 3553(a) factors and stated, “I recognize the defendant’s—those same factors here, relative youth and lack of youthful guidance and childhood trauma, are present in the defendant's history as well, and the Court considers that in determining the appropriate sentence to impose.” Further, Section 3553(a) factors were adequately considered, and the district court provided a reasonable explanation for imposing the sentence consecutively. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence. View "United States v. Hakeem Boyum" on Justia Law

Defendant received a 120-month prison sentence after he threatened to “kill some” government employees and assaulted two guards. Although he requested a downward departure based on his mental-health problems, the district court instead varied upward. On appeal Defendant argues that, neither enhancement applies.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it makes no difference that money may have played a role. The court wrote that Defendant’s theory is that he would have lashed out against anyone who treated him that way, government official or not. But just because he may have taken similar actions against someone else does not mean that their status played no role. To the contrary, his victims were government employees, Defendant wanted them to take certain actions on his behalf, and their status influenced the choices he made. As long as official status was one motivation for the crime, the enhancement applies. View "United States v. Travis Feeback" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts related to the distribution of controlled substances. On appeal, Defendant challenges three evidentiary rulings made by the district court during his trial. He argued that the district court erred in admitting (1) the driver’s license record with his name, address, and photograph; (2) the video and audio recordings from the controlled buys, including the phone calls arranging those buys; and (3) the text messages Special Agent (SA) and Defendant exchanged during the undercover investigation   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that this is not a case where the “extra helping of evidence” from the challenged record is “so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial.” The information on the improperly admitted driver’s license record was cumulative of other evidence, and any error from admitting the record is not reversible. Next, the court held that SA’s testimony satisfies the second McMillan factor that he was competent to operate the recording equipment. The court has also held that a recording’s existence itself can establish that the person operating the device was competent to operate the equipment. Further, the court concluded that the government adequately established that the recordings in Government Exhibit 5 were “authentic and correct.”  Moreover, the court rejected Defendant’s argument that the government did not sufficiently identify the speakers in the recordings. Finally, the court held that the government laid an adequate foundation to authenticate the text messages. View "United States v. Bryan Kimble" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested in connection to a narcoticcs trafficking operation after police pulled over the vehicle he was riding in as a passenger. The driver consented to a search, during which offers found heroin. Officers seized Defendant's phone and obtained a warrant on the basis that Defendant was a drug dealer.The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress the contents of his phone under the Wiretap Act, as well as his statements to police. The court later denied his motions for a directed verdict and new trial. Defendant appealed the denial of his motions as well as his sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Regarding the motion to suppress, officers had probable cause to approach the car based on the evidence in the officers' possession. The Eighth Circuit also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict and motion for a new trial.Finally, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court reviewed all the evidence that Defendant presented to the court and did not err in weighing the evidence differently than Defendant would have preferred. View "United States v. Eric Griggs" on Justia Law