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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute it and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In this case, the district court remarked at the sentencing hearing that Sentencing Commission data showed that defendants like the defendant here received a sentence within the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range more often than not.The court concluded that even if the district court misapprehended nationwide sentencing statistics, it determined from its own, court-specific records that it did not often sentence ordinary career offenders below the Guidelines where they had "earned their stripes as a career offender" as defendant had. Therefore, the court concluded that any error did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceeding and thus was harmless. View "United States v. Shell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of attempting to entice a minor using the internet. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction where the charged offense does not require the involvement of an actual minor. The court explained that even where an undercover officer is playing the role of a minor, an offender commits the crime of attempted enticement under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) where he intends to entice a minor and engages in substantial conduct toward that end. In this case, defendant took substantial steps in furtherance of enticing the minor. View "United States v. Rajab" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his complaint as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court's statement that the dismissal counted as a strike would only make a difference, if at all, once defendant has passed the three-filings threshold, and even then, only if all three were dismissed. Then, and only then, will the number of strikes be ripe for adjudication. View "Gonzalez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 74 month sentence and fine imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to knowingly smuggle aliens into and throughout the United States in violation of law for commercial advantage and private financial gain. Defendant's conviction stemmed from him running a criminal enterprise that smuggled pregnant Marshallese women into the United States and profited by putting their infants up for adoption.The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where, as here, courts may vary upward based on factors already considered under the Guidelines if they determine the weight the Guidelines assigned to a particular factor was insufficient. In this case, the district court found that the Guidelines failed to adequately account for defendant's role as an attorney and public official, his role as a leader and organizer of the offense, and the duration of his crime. The court also concluded that the district court appropriately applied the unwarranted sentencing disparity factor under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). Finally, the district court did not clearly err by deciding to impose a fine and by imposing a fine within the Guidelines range. View "United States v. Petersen" on Justia Law

18 U.S.C. 3664(n), which governs application of inmate account funds to restitution, does not apply to accumulated prison wages. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting the government's Motion for Order to Authorize Payment from Inmate Trust Account, and directing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to turn over $5,500 from defendant's inmate trust account for payment toward his outstanding restitution obligation. The court concluded that the record on appeal does not reveal the sources of the accumulated funds in defendant's account because the district court did not hold the hearing he requested. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kidd" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the evidence seized under the warrant should not be excluded. The court concluded that the record supports the district court's implicit finding that the disputed information was independent of any unlawful seizure. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that investigators independently discovered the baggage incident from November 2016. In this case, it is reasonable to infer that once defendant's suspicious activities with currency were tied to the airport, investigators would review airport records on that basis alone to determine whether defendant had engaged in other suspicious activity at the airport.Even if the detention of defendant at the airport was unlawful, his voluntary and warned statements to investigators at the police station were sufficiently disconnected from the unlawful seizure to make them admissible. Therefore, it was proper for the district court to consider defendant's statements from that interview about structuring cash withdrawals in evaluating whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause to search his home. Finally, after redacting from the affidavit evidence that resulted from the airport detention, the court concluded that the remaining information established probable cause to search. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 300 month sentence imposed after he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court concluded that, because the phones had evidentiary value independent of the data on the phones, the eight-month seizure of the devices before they were searched was not unreasonable. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's proposed instruction on multiple conspiracies where the evidence substantially pointed to a single conspiracy; there was no error in admitting evidence of defendant's drug trafficking activity in California when the activity was undertaken as part of the charged conspiracy; and there was no error in calculating the quantity of drugs. The court further concluded that the district court did not err by imposing sentencing enhancements under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm and USSG 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight. View "United States v. Burris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) and two counts of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm (Counts 2 and 3). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, the court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence that defendant was actively engaged in the use of a controlled substance during the time he possessed firearms in 2013 and 2016, thereby satisfying the requisite temporal nexus between gun possession and regular drug use required under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. The court also concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence that defendant knew his use of controlled substances (notably, marijuana) was unlawful.The court further concluded that the district court correctly merged Counts 1 and 2 for purposes of sentencing; the court remanded for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of one 120-month sentence for Counts 1 and 2; and vacated the district court's imposition of a third term of supervised release because the district court plainly erred when it imposed three terms of supervised release. Having examined the record, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by varying upward from the Guidelines range and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Carnes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon and drug user in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court's factual finding that the officers credibly testified to smelling burnt marijuana while driving behind defendant is not clearly erroneous. In this case, the district court's credibility finding was based on the consistency of the officers' testimony, the corroborating evidence, and the expert testimony. Furthermore, the district court also sufficiently explained its rejection of defendant's counterarguments. In the alternative, the court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the odor of burnt marijuana was coming from defendant's vehicle, rather than any other vehicle. View "United States v. Shumaker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's request for safety valve sentencing because the record supports the district court's determination that defendant was not credible in his safety valve interview. View "United States v. Trujillo-Linares" on Justia Law