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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In regard to the suppression motions, the court concluded that defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his hospital room and thus the officer did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights by entering the room. Because the officer lawfully entered his hospital room and his clothes were in plain view, the court concluded that defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court also concluded that defendant's statements to the police were voluntary in light of the totality of the circumstances where law enforcement did not overbear defendant's will.The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the gun had been in or affected interstate commerce. The court upheld the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement for using or possessing any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense, aggravated assault in this case. Finally, even assuming the district court properly considered the probable-cause section of the complaint and nonelemental facts, it did not err in concluding that defendant committed the assaults on the same occasion and that he does not qualify as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Mattox" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging petitioner's conviction for distributing heroin resulting in death of another person. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition because he failed to establish that section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. In this case, petitioner's impediment to relief was existing caselaw, not the remedy provided by section 2255. Furthermore, because the saving clause enacted by Congress only provides relief when section 2255's remedy itself is inadequate or ineffective, the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition. Without jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition, the district court could not entertain the petition and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing. View "Crayton v. United States" on Justia Law

Cline pleaded guilty to knowing receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), with an appeal waiver. His court-appointed counsel filed an “Anders” motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue. The Eighth Circuit agreed. Cline had moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was not given adequate time to read and understand the plea agreement, and that his plea was therefore not knowing and voluntary. Cline had also argued that his medications’ side effects interfered with his ability to make a knowing and intelligent plea. Cline’s testimony was inconsistent with his statements under oath at the plea hearing, which were found to be credible. It would be frivolous to argue on appeal that the district court erred in finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary and in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. There is no non-frivolous basis on which to challenge the appeal waiver with respect to Cline’s sentence, which was at the low end of the guideline range proposed in Cline’s sentencing memorandum; there is no evidence that the court considered an impermissible factor. The district court sustained Cline’s only objection and adopted the range urged by Cline. View "United States v. Cline" on Justia Law

During an investigation of a peer-to-peer computer file-sharing network being used to acquire child pornography, officers learned from Sandell's neighbor that Sandell had asked to use their Wi-Fi to access the internet to register his sex offender status. Officers knocked on Sandell’s door, identified themselves, conducted a sweep of the home, then asked Sandell where he would like to talk. Sandell invited them inside. The officers explained they were attempting to obtain a search warrant for Sandell’s home but that Sandell was not under arrest, was not obligated to talk to them, and was free to leave. Officers supervised Sandell while he moved around the house. Sandell admitted to downloading child pornography. He voluntarily turned over a camera and thumb drives, stating that he was likely facing 15 years' imprisonment. The officers ultimately obtained a warrant and collected Sandell’s laptop, thumb drives, and DVDs.Sandell was later charged with distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Sandell unsuccessfully moved to suppress statements made at his home. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Sandell was not in custody; the officers did not need to advise Sandell of his Miranda rights. Officers informed Sandell repeatedly he was not under arrest and was not obligated to speak to them. Sandell retained his freedom of movement and voluntarily answered questions. Officers did not use strong-arm or deceptive tactics. Sandell was not immediately arrested. View "United States v. Sandell" on Justia Law

Officer Deaver learned Hansen's girlfriend had purchased a shotgun, listing her address as the home she shared with Hansen. Knowing Hansen had a prior felony conviction, Deaver rode to the property, on a pickup day, in a garbage truck operated by J&J Sanitation. Deaver retrieved a trash container outside the garage and emptied the contents. Officers sorted the trash and found gun catalogs, a plastic baggie containing marijuana, and a transaction history documenting Hansen’s purchases of gun parts. A Nebraska state judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of Hansen’s residence, where law officers seized firearms and ammunition.Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, Hansen unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence and sought a “Franks” hearing, alleging that Deaver omitted material information from the warrant affidavit when he failed to mention that his trash container was located on private property. Hansen asserted he had an agreement with J&J not to pick up his trash unless he moved the container “to a public property location” 200 feet from his garage. Hansen claimed he told J&J not to use the “driveway” leading to his house. The district court sentenced Hansen to 36 months' imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that it was not clear whether the trash was beside a private driveway or a public street and that Deaver had no way of knowing about any agreement Hansen might have had with J&J. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of six counts for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for an entrapment instruction because defendant never produced evidence of inducement. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where, even assuming certain testimony violated the stipulation as to his status of a felon was improper, the weight of the evidence produced at trial demonstrates that the testimony was not prejudicial.In regard to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that defendant has not offered a reason to suspect the government purposefully facilitated the purchase of additional guns solely to enhance his sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. In this case, the record reflects the district court's thoughtful weighing of the appropriate factors, and the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offenses in conjunction with the other aggravating factors identified at sentencing. View "United States v. John" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), concluding that defendant's three burglary convictions under Texas Penal Code Ann. Sec. 30.03(c)(2) qualified as violent felony predicate offenses. The court stated that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has made plain that the Texas burglary statute requires a specific intent to commit the crime. Furthermore, the court has not been pointed to any case to the contrary. View "United States v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, and possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where he failed to show that the government acted in bad faith in regards to a missing surveillance video. The court stated that holding new evidence that at best was only a source of impeachment material did not constitute a sufficient reason to permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.As to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility where he made frivolous objections related to the quantity of drugs attributed to him at sentencing. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court thoroughly explained its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Finally, in light of the district court's thorough analysis and under plain error review, the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by making a statement regarding his two siblings. View "United States v. Seys" on Justia Law

The Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS) hotline received a call reporting drug activity, verbal abuse of children, and weapons at the house where Alloway lived with her boyfriend and his children. A DFS social worker went to the house for a welfare check, accompanied by sheriff’s deputies. Alloway met them outside. They stated the reason for their visit. Alloway invited them into the house and told them to wait in the kitchen while she went upstairs to get the older child. While the social worker interviewed the child, a deputy saw three loaded rifles. Where those rifles were was disputed. After confirming that Alloway was a felon, he arrested her. Alloway’s boyfriend stated that he was also a felon and that there was another gun in the bedroom safe. He refused to open the safe and was also arrested. While the deputies were on the phone getting a search warrant for the safe, they spotted more guns in plain sight in the bedroom. They obtained and executed two search warrants, finding 13 guns, 125 grams of meth, and other drug evidence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress. Alloway consented to the search, and the deputies did not exceed the scope of that consent. View "United States v. Alloway" on Justia Law

Collins paid a minor for sex acts. While in detention, he contacted potential witnesses with instructions on what to say to law enforcement and with questions about the victim’s whereabouts and violated a no-contact order. Collins pled guilty to sex trafficking of children, 18 U.S.C. 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2). His plea agreement stipulated that the government would abstain from recommending a guidelines enhancement for obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, and would recommend that Collins receive credit for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. The government’s offense conduct statement included a summary of Collins’ post-indictment conduct but nonetheless recommended that Collins receive credit for acceptance and no obstruction enhancement.The PSIR proposed an enhancement for obstruction of justice and no credit for acceptance of responsibility. The government’s sentencing memorandum detailed Collins’ allegedly obstructive conduct, stating that “Collins’ attempts to influence witnesses throughout these proceedings are certainly relevant under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and as to his acceptance of responsibility.” The district court rejected an enhancement for obstruction. With a two-level reduction for acceptance, Collins’ guidelines range became 210-262 months. The court varied downward by an additional level, stating “the government has an obligation here to move for that third level, but I can’t force them” and sentenced Collins to 210 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit vacated. The government breached the plea agreement by relying on Collins’ pre-plea conduct to dispute acceptance of responsibility. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law