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

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He received a statutory-maximum ten-year sentence. In doing so, the district court varied upward from a guideline range of 51–63 months based on a prior felony assault conviction under Arkansas Code Annotated Sec, 5-13-204.On appeal, Defendant claimed that Sec, 5-13-204 is not a crime of violence. The statute provides, " A person commits aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely ... Impedes or prevents the respiration of another person or the circulation of another person’s blood by applying pressure on the throat or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth of the other person."The Eighth Circuit found Sec, 5-13-204 qualifies as a crime of violence based on the fact that domestic abuse strangulation, which contains almost identical phrasing, was previously held to be a crime of violence. View "United States v. Jeremy Burnett" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 270 months of incarceration followed by five years of supervisor release following a conviction for various drug and gun crimes. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences on all charges, rejecting each of his appellate issues.The trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The tint on Defendant's window was dark enough to give the officer reasonable suspicion that Defendant's vehicle was in violation. The second traffic stop of Defendant was also supported by probable cause because Defendant's vehicle was missing license plates and he was speeding.The court also found that the evidence against Defendant was sufficient to support his convictions and that the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Tevin Maurstad" on Justia Law

After serving a prison sentence for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, Defendant began his five-year term of supervised release. He completed nearly four years without incident. In October 2020, the United States Probation Office filed a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision, alleging Defendant had committed two supervised release violations. At the revocation hearing, the government agreed with the Probation Office’s recommendation. Defendant claims the court abused its discretion in basing its sentence on the “minor conduct” that led to revocation, and by failing to account for his rehabilitation and success under supervised release.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order revoking Defendant’s term of supervised release. The court held that when imposing a revocation sentence, the individualized assessment required by Section 3553(a) allows the district court to consider relevant conduct underlying alleged supervised release violations that were dismissed. Here, the district court expressly took into account Defendant’s prior supervised release success. The court considered Defendant’s arguments weighed them against his offense conduct, and explained its reasons for imposing a within-range sentence. View "United States v. Thomas Dennis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement for possessing any firearm in connection with another felony offense, and its decision to depart upward under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.3 based on conduct for which Defendant was acquitted.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Defendant argued that the district court clearly erred in finding that the gun facilitated the marijuana possession. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant’s gun facilitated his drug possession. Defendant possessed the gun in public, on a public road in his car, and both the gun and at least some of the drugs were easily accessible; the gun was on the passenger-side floorboard and a baggie of marijuana was found in the center console.   Next, Defendant argued that the district court erred in departing upward under Section 4A1.3 based on the conduct of which he was acquitted. The court held that the district court’s reliance on acquitted conduct to depart upward did not violate Defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Second, the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant recklessly used a firearm, resulting in serious injury. Third, the district court adequately explained why the applicable criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of Defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that he will commit other crimes. Finally, though Defendant disagreed with the district court’s weighing of the factors, that does not make his sentence substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. DeShaun Bullock, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Presentence Report recommended a 4-level enhancement for possessing the gun “in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The “other felony” was a violation of Iowa Code Section  724.4(1) (2018) (amended 2021). At the time, that provision prohibited “knowingly carr[ying] or transport[ing] in a vehicle a pistol or revolver.” But the Iowa legislature significantly amended the statute before Defendant’s sentencing hearing.   The district court found that the relevant version was the one in effect at the time of the offense, and applied the enhancement. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court misapplied the enhancement because the relevant version for Guidelines purposes is the one in effect at the time of sentencing.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed and explained that the district court correctly found that, for purposes of Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the relevant version of Iowa Code Section 724.4(1) is the one in effect at the time of the offense, not at the time of sentencing. View "United States v. Adnan Alibegic" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was on probation for possession of methamphetamine, illegally harvested timber, cut it up into firewood and burned it. Defendant left the fires unattended and when he returned the fire had spread. Defendant fled the area and did not report the fire. Defendant pleaded guilty to willfully burning timber, underbrush, grass, and other material on public lands owned by the United States in the Buffalo National River.The pre-sentence report provided a base offense level of 24, based on Defendant creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to firemen, nearby residents, and guests of the park. The PSR applied a two-level enhancement for Defendant's attempt to cover up his illegal timber harvesting by starting the fire. Based on Defendant's criminal history and acceptance of responsibility, his guidelines were 92 to 115 months; however, the statutory maximum for the offense was 60 months. The court sentenced Defendant to 60 months.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. The district court did not err in applying the enhancement for creating a risk of death or serious bodily injury based on the size of the fire and the remote, rugged area where it was located. The court also rejected Defendant's claim that the fire was intended to conceal his illegal timber harvesting operation. View "United States v. Jacob Walls" on Justia Law

A police officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle after the officer observed it traveling 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The driver did not stop and led the officer on a high-speed chase before crashing. Two people exited the vehicle and fled. The officer pursued Defendant, who was the passenger. The officer used his taser on Defendant, who then grabbed a nearby firearm and pointed it at the officer. The officer shot Defendant, who was later indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon.The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress any evidence recovered after he was tased, and a jury ultimately convicted Defendant. Defendant appealed.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. By tasing Defendant, the officer executed a warrantless arrest. However, this arrest was supported by probable cause based on the traffic stop and Defendant's subsequent flight despite the officer's demands to stop. The court determined that the officer reasonably thought that Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.The Eighth Circuit rejected Defendant's remaining challenges to his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Meamen Nyah" on Justia Law

Appellants were charged by superseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. At sentencing, the district court varied downward, sentencing each Appellant to a term below the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range. Appellants challenged their sentences, with one Appellant additionally arguing that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop of his vehicle.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and first held that the traffic stop was not unlawfully extended based on the facts presented. The court found that viewing the facts cumulatively and considering the Officer’s extensive experience and training, the Officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop of Appellant’s vehicle. Here, Appellant’s demeanor was suspicious; he was visibly “shaking,” “twitching,” and “trembling,” his mouth was noticeably dry, he appeared increasingly uncomfortable when pressed about his travel plans, and he attempted to change the topic of conversation.   Next, the court held that the Appellants’ sentences were not substantively unreasonable. The court reasoned that a district court may vary from a Guideline on policy grounds, but it is not required to do so. Here, the district court did not commit a procedural error when it denied Appellant’s argument that he should receive a mitigating role reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2(b) as he played multiple roles in the drug trafficking organization. Consequently, the court did not err in applying a three-level reduction pursuant to Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(a)(5). View "United States v. Felipe Noriega, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was pulled over for speeding. Defendant and her passenger consented to a vehicle search, which revealed 28.4 pounds of heroin. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court denied, at which point Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing heroin with intent to distribute. Seeking safety valve relief, Defendant gave a proffer interview to law enforcement, explaining how she became involved in drug trafficking, including who recruited her and the methods used to transport the drugs, as well as how she supported herself since coming to the United States. However, at sentencing, the district court determined Defendant was not entirely truthful about the source of funds in her bank account and denied relief. The court then sentenced Defendant to 120 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. The district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The district court was entitled to make a credibility determination regarding whether Defendant was speeding. Additionally, the officer did not exceed his authority when asking Defendant out of the car and did not unreasonably delay the traffic stop. Finally, the officer's testimony that Defendant verbally consented was sufficient to establish consent, even without a signed consent form.The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant safety valve relief or calculating her sentencing guidelines. View "United States v. Veronica Gonzalez-Carmona" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to the destruction of an energy facility, use of fire to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm/ammunition by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Defendant was sentenced to 180 months in prison and over $4.8 million in restitution. Defendant's sentence included a requirement that he pay "50 percent per month of earned income available to him." However, the judgment did not define what constitutes earned income.When Defendant received a COVID-19 stimulus payment in 2021, the government moved to authorize a $1,000.87 payment from Defendant's inmate trust account. Defendant objected, claiming the money was not "earned income." Without explanation, the district court granted the government's motion and Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting the government's request to authorize the payment from Defendant's inmate trust account. The district court failed to place any findings of fact regarding the source of the money in Defendant's inmate trust account. The question is if the money in Defendant's account constitutes "substantial resources" from outside sources that would be subject to § 3664(n). The court remanded the case to the district court for further fact-finding. View "United States v. Jason Woodring" on Justia Law