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

After being pulled over, Defendant and his vehicle were searched, revealing a pistol and cocaine contained in various packaging materials. Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug transaction, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, an expert testified for the government that the narcotics in question were "possessed with the intent to distribute." Defendant did not object at the time.Reviewing for plain error, the Eighth Circuit determined that the district court erred in admitting the expert's testimony, but affirmed Defendant's conviction. While the expert's testimony was prohibited opinion evidence, given the other evidence supporting the jury's verdict, the error did not affect Defendant's substantial rights. The court also held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, rejecting Defendant's sufficiency challenge. View "United States v. Emanuel Cowley, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of threatening to assault and murder a federal official and two counts of mailing threatening communications. The allegations were based on Defendant's several repeated promises, verbal and written, to kill two FBI agents. The pre-sentence report ("PSR") proposed an advisory range of 140 to 175 months of imprisonment. Neither party objected to the PSR, but the government sought a sentence of at least 20 years. The court sentenced Defendant to 480 months, based on Defendant's lack of remorse, the need to protect the public, and to deter Defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct, among other things.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. A district court is not prohibited from "determining that the weight the Guidelines assigned to a particular factor was insufficient." Additionally, the sentencing court can take uncharged conduct into account. Here, the district court provided an explanation as to why the guideline calculation was insufficient to address the court's concerns. View "United States v. Clayton Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, Defendant consented to a video sentencing hearing. After reviewing the pre-sentence report, Defendant's evidence of mitigation and the relevant sentencing factors, the court sentenced Defendant to the statutory maximum term of incarceration.On appeal, Defendant claimed that the district court violated his right to counsel and his right to meaningful allocation by muting the audio portion of the recording two times during the sentencing hearing. The Eighth Circuit rejected Defendant's argument, finding that the muting did not implicate Due Process concerns. Defendant's attorney was able to argue on his behalf while the audio was muted and Defendant had subsequent opportunity to allocate.The court also determined that Defendant's sentence was not procedurally flawed or substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Joshua Braman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and its ruling to limit the cross-examination of a law enforcement witness at trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and the judgment of the district court. The court held that the district court did not err in its credibility finding.Defendant argued that the arresting Trooper lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle Defendant was involved in any criminal activity and, thus, the traffic stop was unlawful. He asserted that the district court clearly erred in its credibility finding and that the trooper’s testimony was “plainly contradicted” by the squad car videos. The court held that Defendant is correct that the video footage does not confirm the Trooper’s testimony concerning each of the three traffic violations, however, nothing in the video footage undermined that testimony.Next, Defendant argued the district court improperly limited his cross-examination of the Trooper at trial. At trial court sustained the government’s objection to the defense’s line of questioning regarding the Trooper and his DRE training, specifically about allegations that officers participating in the training program supplied drugs to young people in Minneapolis. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion to curtail the inquiry. View "United States v. Pierre Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to launder money for a drug trafficking ring, and the district court, in calculating Defendant’s recommended sentencing range, found that Defendant was responsible for more than five hundred grams of drugs. On appeal, Defendant challenged that determination and argued that his recommended sentencing range was too high as a result of the court's error. Defendant objected to the presentence report (“PSR”) calculation. He claimed that "the facts contained in the PSR are insufficient to demonstrate that the amount alleged even existed” let alone that he engaged in any actions related to the amount. He also challenged the price of methamphetamine that the PSR recommended.   The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and found that the court erred in calculating Defendant’s sentencing range. The court left it to the district court to decide whether resentencing should take place on the existing record and to resolve Defendant’s objection concerning the price of methamphetamine.   The court found that the timing of events supports the conclusion that some of the drugs may have been counted twice. Therefore, Defendant’s sentence cannot stand on this record because it was the government’s burden to demonstrate drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, the court held that it does not believe that Defendant forfeited his double-counting argument by raising it for the first time at the sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Dakota Siller" on Justia Law

Defendant, while working as a priest, stole from the cash-offering collections of several parishes. After a jury trial, he was convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, transporting stolen money, and making and subscribing false tax returns. The district court sentenced him to 93 months’ imprisonment.   The Eighth Circuit reversed three of Defendant’s convictions and affirmed his remaining convictions, the forfeiture order, and the restitution award. The court also affirmed his sentence, except it directed the district court to vacate the $100 special assessments associated with Counts 39, 41, and 44.   The court held that the district court did not plainly err in failing to disturb the jury’s finding that Defendant’s cash deposits furthered his fraudulent scheme. Assuming the deposited money comprised stolen cash, a reasonable jury could believe that the cash deposits, were designed to “postpone inquiries,” and to keep the scheme from coming under scrutiny.   However, the court held that the district court did plainly err in upholding the wire fraud convictions which involved transfers of funds rather than cash deposits. The court reasoned that no reasonable jury could find that these actions furthered a fraudulent scheme. Once the cash was securely in the credit union account, the danger that it would expose Defendant’s scheme to fellow priests was eliminated. Finally, although the court reversed Defendant’s convictions for Counts 39, 41, and 44, it did not remand for resentencing because the sentences for those counts ran concurrently with the sentences for the first sixty counts. View "United States v. Marcin Garbacz" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm as a prohibited person, and the district court sentenced him to 71 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, an evidentiary ruling at trial, and the four-level increase at sentencing.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction finding that the record contains ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant constructively possessed the firearm. Further, the record supports that Defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm. The court reasoned that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant possessed methamphetamine at the time of his arrest, and was an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Moreover, there is no plain error warranting relief, because the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Defendant knew of his status as a convicted felon.   Next, in regards to Defendant’s challenge of the admission of the Facebook photograph that shows him pointing a gun at the camera, the court held that the absence of conclusive evidence that the items were real did not create a risk of unfair prejudice. The court also noted the photograph was relevant.   Finally, although the four-level increase sentencing guideline does not allow an automatic increase simply because a defendant possesses drugs and a gun in the same proximity, the court did not err because it properly applied the “facilitate” standard. View "United States v. Darrell Two Hearts" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. Defendant argued that the district court erred in overruling his Batson objection, abused its discretion in admitting parts of the government’s expert witness’s testimony, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction. Defendant’s failure to lodge an objection at trial resulted in the waiver of his Batson claim. Regarding the government’s witness, the court held that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless. Finally, the court found that the government’s evidence against Defendant was sufficient to support his convictions. View "United States v. Robert Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals the district court’s imposition of a 66-month sentence for illegal possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that he knew he was a prohibited person under any category; the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial by misstating the presumption of innocence, and his sentence was improperly enhanced because the Iowa assault conviction is not a “crime of violence.”The court found that there is sufficient evidence of an intimate partnership, including evidence of the no-contact order itself, with the state judge’s finding that Defendant and the victim met the federal definition of intimate partners. Next, the court found that the no-contact order here was issued as part of the judgment agreed to by Defendant, who was represented by counsel, in his guilty plea. Third, the court held that Iowa presumes that a no-contact order “has force and effect until it is modified or terminated by subsequent court action.” In Iowa, the absence of a record can prove the nonoccurrence of an act or event, here the nonoccurrence of any modification or termination of the no-contact order. Thus, the court held the evidence was sufficient to find that Defendant possessed a firearm with knowledge that he was subject to a no-contact order involving an intimate partner. Further, Defendant has not shown that the improper remarks prejudiced his right in obtaining a fair trial. Finally, increase to Defendant’s base offense level under Sec. 2K2.1(a), if error at all, was harmless. View "United States v. Junior Roldan Marin" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of sexual abuse of an incapacitated victim. On appeal, Defendant challenges one pretrial evidentiary ruling by the district court and one of its directives at trial.Defendant argued that the district court erred in allowing the government to elicit testimony from the victim and her mother regarding the victim’s suicide attempt. Defendant’s primary argument was that the testimony lacked sufficient probative value to overcome its potential prejudicial effect on the jury as it determined whether the victim was sexually assaulted. The court found that the district court adequately addressed Defendant’s concern, noting that “the testimony is unlikely to be so provocative as to divert the jury’s attention from the central sexual abuse allegation.” The court found that due to the temporal and causal proximity of the victim’s suicide attempt in relation to Defendant’s conduct, the evidence was probative and not unfairly prejudicial.Next, Defendant claimed that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court impermissibly restricted his cross-examination of both the victim and her mother. However, ultimately, the jury acquitted Defendant of aggravated sexual abuse, but it found him guilty of abuse of an incapacitated victim. That the jury convicted him of only one count but not the other indicates that it was able to make an appropriate determination based on the evidence. Thus, the court affirmed the district court ruling. View "United States v. Paul Cavanaugh" on Justia Law