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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction and that there was no error in the district court's calculation of methamphetamine attributable to him. After reviewing the evidence presented at trial and the arguments set forth at sentencing, the court found that there is nothing in the record which definitely and firmly illustrates that the lower court made a mistake. View "United States v. Orlando Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized through execution of a search warrant of his motel room, his statements to police during an interrogation, and an eyewitness identification. The court concluded that the information in the affidavit was stale where one of the charges against defendant was for a continuing offense, and there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause to search the motel room for firearms. The court also concluded that the district court did not not err in denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing where, even if the affidavit were supplemented by facts defendant contends were improperly omitted, a judge could reasonably conclude that probable cause existed for finding firearms in Room 220. The court further concluded that, it need not decide whether officers had consent to enter, because even if consent was lacking, the challenged evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Finally, the court concluded that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, and rejected defendant's challenge to the witness's identification from a mug shot. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempted coercion or enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(a). Defendant was sentenced to time served and 120 months' supervised release, including one year of home confinement. The government acknowledges that there was no procedural error, but contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the below-Guidelines sentence where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including his lack of a criminal history and his honorable military service. The court explained that the district court has wide latitude to weigh the sentencing factors, including the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and the Post Conviction Risk Assessment. The court rejected the government's remaining contentions to the contrary. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 360 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to production of child pornography. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for an offense involving "the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact," pursuant to USSG 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). The court also concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for use of a computer to "solicit participation with a minor in sexually explicit conduct," USSG 2G2.1(b)(6)(B)(ii). View "United States v. Raiburn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of the career offender enhancement to defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The court concluded that the logic of its circuit precedent dictates that Iowa domestic abuse assault with intent to inflict serious injury is a crime of violence. Accordingly, there was no error in the district court's determination that defendant's prior conviction for Iowa domestic abuse assault qualified as a crime of violence. View "United States v. Tinlin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 28 month sentence imposed after he violated his fourth term of supervised release. Although the district court did not recite the guideline range at the hearing, the record shows that the advisory range was properly calculated in a violation worksheet that the probation office submitted to the court several days before the proceeding. The court has previously said that where the court has before it a revocation packet from the probation office that includes the proper guideline analysis, and the defendant requests a sentence recommended by the probation office, then there is no plain error in the court’s failure to mention the guidelines. In this case, the violation worksheet calculated the correct advisory range and defendant has failed to establish that the district court obviously failed to calculate and consider the guideline range.The court also concluded that there was no obvious error in the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, and defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a more favorable sentence. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable given his track record of incorrigibility and it was not unreasonable for the district court to impose a term of imprisonment that exceeded the advisory guideline range, discharging him from supervision. View "United States v. Elbert" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 210 month sentence imposed by the district court after determining that he was a career offender under USSG 4B1.1(a). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in this case. The court explained that, in denying a variance and imposing a 210-month sentence, the district court carefully explained that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentencing guidelines, the seriousness of the offense conduct, the violations defendant committed when granted pretrial release, his troubled childhood and health conditions as mitigating factors, and his extensive criminal history beginning at age 13 and extending nearly four decades as an adult. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for assault resulting in serious bodily injury at a place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Defendant was serving a sentence at the U. S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri when he entered the room of another inmate and attacked him, causing severe injuries, emergency intubation, and facial reconstruction surgery.The court held that a district court may take judicial notice that a place is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States and not submit that issue to the jury, without violating a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the court need not address whether the evidence at trial was sufficient for a jury to find that the Center is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. View "United States v. Love" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion for modification of his sentence under the First Step Act and imposition of a reduced term of imprisonment. Defendant argues that the district court should have reduced his sentence to time served. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the appropriate reduction where it considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and explained that a sentence reduction to 454 months satisfied the purposes of sentencing. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 102 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence above the advisory Guidelines range where the district court expressed the shooting as "appalling and incredibly dangerous" and expressed concern about the fact that defendant had demonstrated a repeated tendency to engage in violent behavior. Furthermore, the district court considered defendant's history of violence, the need for deterrence, and the importance of imposing a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense conduct. In this case, the district court had wide latitude in considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and the court discerned no clear error in the district court's weighing of those factors. View "United States v. Todd-Harris" on Justia Law