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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 96 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. In this case, the district court expressly considered defendant's arguments regarding his traumatic upbringing, the median sentence imposed for all types of firearms offenses, and the connection between his firearm possession and his other felony offense. The court explained that the district court had wide lattitude in weighing the relevant sentencing factors and discerned no clear error of judgment in how the district court weighed the factors here. View "United States v. McDaniels" on Justia Law

Officers responded to a shooting in an apartment building's parking lot. Three victims were transported to the hospital. Officers observed a security camera in the window of apartment 1, pointed toward the parking lot. After interviewing two witnesses, Detective Dunn viewed video footage from a business across the street, which corroborated their account. He learned that Haney, an occupant of unit 1, was involved in a dispute with the sister of two shooting victims. Dunn obtain a warrant to search Unit 1; other officers executed the warrant. An officer moved clothes in the bedroom closet and saw a sawed-off shotgun. He also seized a baggie of white powder, a laptop, and cell phones from the bedroom. Other officers seized cameras, a computer monitor, a Kindle, shotgun shells, pieces of a scale with traces of drug residue, photographs, and documents bearing the names of Haney and Saddler.Saddler later unsuccessfully moved to suppress all evidence seized during the search and an incriminating statement she later made concerning the shotgun. The Eighth Circuit affirmed her subsequent conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The affidavit described facts that connected Haney to the shooting and created a fair probability that evidence that would aid in a particular apprehension or conviction would be found. Dunn’s reliance on the issuance of the warrant was objectively reasonable. In addition, the seizure of the shotgun satisfied the “plain view” exception. View "United States v. Saddler" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of children. In this case, federal agents, who were concerned that defendant would destroy evidence if he were allowed to go back inside, entered defendant's house without a warrant and took two computers, a cell phone, and a hard drive.The court concluded that the circumstances were suspicious enough that the agents could have reasonably concluded that there was a substantial chance that defendant was involved in criminal activity. The court also concluded that the officers had a sufficient basis to reasonably believe that defendant would imminently destroy evidence, and thus defendant's conduct created an exigency. Therefore, the warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers had probable cause, the exigency was real, and it was not of the agents' making. Finally, any error in the district court's statement at sentencing was harmless. View "United States v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to mail fraud and involuntary manslaughter. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his intoxication at work while he was Chief of Pathology for the Veterans Health Care System of the Ozarks (VSHO).The court concluded that, because the VHSO ordered the lookback to benefit patients, rather than to help the criminal investigation, the district court did not err by including it in the loss amount calculation. In this case, the district court found that the loss amount caused by defendant's crimes was over two million dollars, including the cost of the lookback, so it imposed a 16-level enhancement. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in imposing an upward departure for disruption of a government function where the lookback was the largest review ever undertaken by the VA system and multiple VA medical centers were burdened by the extra work. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable where the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in length and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 240 months in prison. View "United States v. Levy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims in his motion for 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief on the merits. Assuming without deciding that the government's use of false or discredited scientific evidence could violate a criminal defendant's right to due process, the court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant failed to prove that his trial and conviction were fundamentally unfair. The court also concluded that it need not decide whether a freestanding actual innocence claim is cognizable because, as in Rouse III, appellant's newly discovered victim recantations, medical science evidence, and juror bias evidence do not meet the extraordinarily high burden of proving actual innocence. The court further concluded that the district court properly concluded that appellant's Sixth Amendment claim, filed over 20 years after his conviction, is untimely under section 2255(f)(1), and even if the claim is not time-barred, it fails on the merits. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing. View "Feather v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 63-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of the handgun in connection with another felony offense. In this case, the district court found that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant possessed a firearm in connection with the North Dakota felony offense of preventing arrest. View "United States v. Nilsen" on Justia Law

Defendant remains at large after escaping from a residential reentry center just over four months ago. Having given him a chance to surrender and respond to an order to show cause, the Eighth Circuit now exercises its discretion and dismissed the appeal under the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. The court explained that it may sua sponte dismiss in circumstances like this one. View "United States v. Emery" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 60-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, weighing the mitigation factors against his extensive criminal history and propensity for violence. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an upward variance. View "United States v. Hubbs" on Justia Law

Jacqueline Mills was convicted of multiple counts of wire fraud, money laundering, and bribery. These charges were related to a years-long scheme to defraud the United States of monies intended to feed low-income children. The jury found that fourteen properties and monies were traceable to the proceeds of Mills's fraud. Rosie and John Farr, Mills's mother and stepfather, filed third party petitions asserting interests in various properties to be forfeited, including monies from a Southern Bancorp account number. The forfeiture order became final as to Mills when she was sentenced, but it remained preliminary as to the Farrs until the ancillary proceeding concluded. In the two years between the Farrs filing their third party petitions and the government moving for summary judgment, the Farrs failed to present evidence supporting their claims of a superior ownership interest in the Southern Bancorp account.The Eighth Circuit concluded that, on this record, the Farrs failed to prove a prior interest in the property under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(6)(A) because the proceeds of an offense do not exist before the offense is committed, and when they come into existence, the government's interest under the relation-back doctrine immediately vests. Furthermore, the Farrs failed to present evidence that they qualify as bona fide purchasers for value under section 853(n)(6)(B). The court also concluded that excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) does not include ignorance or carelessness on the part of an attorney, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying that general rule in this case. Finally, as in United States v. Waits, it is clear that the Farrs as third parties had adequate notice the government intended to seek forfeiture, as their timely third party petitions confirmed. View "United States v. Farr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, concluding that recent precedents foreclosed defendant's arguments. The court concluded that the fact that the district court did not make an affirmative statement acknowledging its broad First Step Act discretion does not raise an inference that the court misapprehended the scope of its authority. Furthermore, in exercising its First Step Act discretion, a district court may consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, but section 404 of the Act does not mandate analysis of these factors. In this case, the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in denying relief under the Act. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law