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

Kevin Bordeaux pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and assaulting, resisting, and impeding a federal officer. On July 6, 2022, Bordeaux shot his girlfriend, Megan Hawk, in the hip and fled the scene. Two days later, he led law enforcement on a high-speed chase, during which he and an accomplice fired at officers. Bordeaux was subsequently captured and indicted on multiple charges.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota sentenced Bordeaux based on an offense level of 29 and a Criminal History Category of III, resulting in a Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. This calculation was based on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which initially included a five-level enhancement for discharging a firearm. Bordeaux objected to the addition of two criminal history points, which the court sustained, reducing his Criminal History Category from IV to III. However, the court mistakenly maintained the offense level at 29 instead of 28, leading to the incorrect Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The government conceded that the district court had miscalculated the Guidelines range, but argued that the error did not prejudice Bordeaux. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, noting that the correct Guidelines range should have been 97 to 121 months. The court found that the miscalculation affected Bordeaux’s substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings, as there was a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence within the correct range. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing under the correct Guidelines range. View "United States v. Bordeaux" on Justia Law

Two men, Bruce Sanford and Houston Simmons, were found in a car outside a nightclub in Waterloo, Iowa. A nightclub owner reported to the police that the men were smoking and drinking in the car. When officers arrived, they smelled marijuana and subsequently searched the car, finding marijuana, cash, and a handgun. Both men were charged with possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony.At the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, both Sanford and Simmons filed motions to suppress the evidence, arguing they were unlawfully seized when the officers blocked their car. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the car was not completely blocked and could have moved. The court concluded that the men were not unlawfully seized before the officers smelled marijuana and denied the motions to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding no clear error in the lower court’s factual determinations. The appellate court agreed that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have felt free to leave, despite the presence of armed officers and flashing lights. The court held that the positioning of the squad cars did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and upheld the denial of the motions to suppress. View "United States v. Sanford" on Justia Law

Darius Sledge and Baquan Sledge were involved in a large-scale drug distribution conspiracy in North Dakota, targeting several Indian Reservations. They transported thousands of oxycodone pills from Michigan and recruited local residents as sub-distributors. Despite being arrested, Baquan continued his involvement from jail. Both were charged with multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, money laundering, and maintaining drug-involved premises. A jury found Baquan guilty on all counts and Darius on all but one.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied Baquan's motion to be returned to North Dakota from a Colorado facility, deeming it moot as he had already been returned. The court also denied Darius and Baquan's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror bias, finding no dishonesty in juror responses during voir dire. Both were sentenced to 360 months for the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) count and 240 months for other counts, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It reversed Darius’s CCE conviction due to an error in jury instructions, specifically the lack of a unanimity instruction regarding the predicate felonies. The court found this error affected Darius’s substantial rights and the fairness of the proceedings. The court remanded for a new trial on this count and remanded Baquan’s drug conspiracy conviction to the district court to vacate the lesser-included offense. The court affirmed the judgments in all other respects, including the denial of a new trial based on juror bias and the handling of Baquan’s pre-trial detention location. View "United States v. Sledge" on Justia Law

Kendra Kingsbury, an FBI Intelligence Analyst with Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) security clearance, pled guilty to two counts of willful retention of national defense information. During her employment, she improperly retained classified documents at her home, which were discovered during an FBI investigation. The investigation revealed that Kingsbury had approximately 20,000 documents, including 386 classified ones, some related to counterterrorism. Additionally, phone records indicated calls to and from individuals involved in counterterrorism investigations, which Kingsbury denied making.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust, increasing her advisory Guidelines range to 46-57 months of imprisonment. Kingsbury was sentenced to 46 months. She appealed the enhancement, arguing it was already included in her base offense level.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the enhancement for plain error, as Kingsbury did not object at sentencing. The court found that the enhancement was appropriate because Kingsbury’s position of trust significantly facilitated the commission of the offense. The court rejected her argument that the enhancement was subsumed within the base offense level, noting that another FBI employee without her security clearance could have committed the same crime without the enhancement. Therefore, the court concluded that the enhancement was not duplicative of her base offense level.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement and upheld Kingsbury’s 46-month sentence. View "United States v. Kingsbury" on Justia Law

Law enforcement executed a search warrant at Ryan Dewayne Myrick’s apartment, discovering 69.01 grams of methamphetamine, drug packaging, a digital scale, and other paraphernalia. In his vehicle, they found additional drug packaging. Myrick was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute. He pleaded guilty to the latter charge, admitting to possessing 69.01 grams of methamphetamine, with the intent to distribute at least 50 grams. The government agreed to dismiss the conspiracy charge and recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, contingent on Myrick’s continued demonstration of acceptance.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa reviewed the case. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended holding Myrick responsible for 4.5 kilograms or more of methamphetamine, resulting in a base offense level of 38. It also suggested a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for drug distribution and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Myrick objected to the drug quantity and the premises enhancement, while the government objected to the reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court overruled Myrick’s objections and sustained the government’s, resulting in a total offense level of 40 and an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life. Myrick was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Myrick challenged the district court’s drug quantity determination, the premises enhancement, and the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court’s findings, including the credibility of witness testimony and the application of relevant conduct principles. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Myrick’s sentence. View "United States v. Myrick" on Justia Law

Kayne Russell Donath pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. During a traffic stop, Donath, who had an outstanding warrant, refused to exit the vehicle, grabbed the gearshift, and commanded the driver to flee. He threatened the driver with a concealed firearm, which he later discarded while fleeing on foot. Police recovered the firearm and arrested Donath, who had a prior felony conviction prohibiting him from possessing a firearm.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa categorized two of Donath’s prior state offenses as “crimes of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a higher base offense level. The court also decreased his offense level by two levels for acceptance of responsibility but did not grant an additional one-level decrease because the government did not move for it. Donath was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s categorization of Donath’s prior offenses as crimes of violence, citing precedent that assaulting a correctional officer under Iowa law qualifies as such. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to decrease Donath’s offense level by only two levels for acceptance of responsibility, noting that the government did not move for the additional one-level decrease and had a rational basis for withholding the motion. The appellate court concluded that Donath was not entitled to the additional decrease and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Donath" on Justia Law

Mark Whitworth was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Missouri State Highway Patrol officers executed a search warrant at Whitworth’s residence, finding methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and cash. Whitworth, his wife, and co-conspirator Russell Walker were present during the search. Text messages on Whitworth’s phone indicated drug sales. A grand jury indicted Whitworth on two counts related to methamphetamine distribution.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri oversaw Whitworth’s trial. Walker pled guilty before the trial and testified against Whitworth, stating he helped Whitworth sell methamphetamine. Another witness testified to purchasing methamphetamine from Whitworth. Whitworth’s defense argued that Walker acted alone. The jury found Whitworth guilty on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 235 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Whitworth appealed, challenging the district court’s decisions to strike a potential juror, admit testimony suggesting he had a prior felony, and apply an aggravated role enhancement in sentencing. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the juror due to the judge’s personal relationship with her family, as Whitworth failed to show prejudice. The court also found no error in admitting the testimony about the firearms, as it was relevant to the drug distribution charges. Lastly, the court upheld the aggravated role enhancement, finding sufficient evidence that Whitworth supervised Walker in the drug distribution scheme. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Whitworth" on Justia Law

Chad Eric Mink was convicted on June 24, 2019, of 15 counts related to a harassment campaign against his ex-girlfriend and her partner. He was sentenced to 600 months in prison. Mink appealed, and the Eighth Circuit vacated his conviction on one count and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts. One week before his resentencing hearing, Mink filed a combined motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, raising new challenges to four counts. He argued that the district court should extend the filing deadlines due to excusable neglect.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Mink's motion, finding that he had ample opportunity to file within the deadlines and that the issues raised did not involve new law or evidence. Mink appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its excusable-neglect determination. The district court found that Mink's delay was not justified by new legal developments and that he had control over the timing of his filing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The court applied the excusable-neglect standard, considering factors such as the reason for the delay, the length of the delay, potential prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the movant acted in good faith. The court found that Mink's delay of over three years was excessive and within his control, and that the new legal precedents he cited did not significantly alter the law applicable to his case. The court also noted the potential prejudice to the government if a new trial were granted. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Mink's motion, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Mink" on Justia Law

The case revolves around James "Tim" Norman, who was convicted of conspiring to commit murder for hire and murder for hire, as well as conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud. Norman had orchestrated the murder of his nephew, Andre Montgomery, and attempted to cash in on a fraudulent life insurance policy on his life. The insurance policy was set up without Montgomery's knowledge and would have resulted in a $450,000 payout upon Montgomery's death.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Norman appealed the decision, challenging several of the district court's trial rulings. He argued that two potential witnesses, Carroll and Yaghnam, had waived their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and should have been compelled to testify. The district court found that their claims of privilege were valid.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's rulings. The court held that Carroll and Yaghnam's claims of privilege were valid and that they faced real danger by testifying. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel Yaghnam to appear and assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in person, as Norman had failed to serve a subpoena. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting hearsay texts from Montgomery and an out-of-court statement from Carroll. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's use of demonstrative exhibits to summarize evidence. View "United States v. Norman" on Justia Law

The case involves Norman Thurber, who was convicted of six counts of production of child pornography. The charges stemmed from videos found on Thurber's cell phone, which depicted him engaging in sexual acts with a minor female. Thurber was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on each count, with the sentences running concurrently, and 10 years of supervised release to follow. Thurber appealed, challenging various trial rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court's imposition of standard conditions of supervised release in the written judgment that it did not orally pronounce at sentencing.The district court had ruled that Thurber was not entitled to present mistake of age as an affirmative defense, citing Eighth Circuit precedent. The court allowed Thurber to introduce evidence that the minor represented herself to be 18 years old, but only insofar as it was evidence that she was actually 18 years old, as age was an element of the offense. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Thurber’s convictions, but vacated the portion of the judgment imposing the standard conditions of supervised release and remanded to the district court for resentencing limited to the standard conditions. The court found that the district court did not err in refusing to allow Thurber to introduce additional portions of the text message exchange between him and the minor. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying Thurber the opportunity to present a mistake-of-age defense. View "United States v. Thurber" on Justia Law