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

Defendant and nine others were charged with conspiring to sell methamphetamine between 2015 and 2019. The other nine co-defendants all pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government in Defendant's case. The prosecution sought admission of controlled buy in which Defendant sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant several months before the conspiracy began. The district court admitted the transaction with a limiting instruction. A jury found Defendant guilty, and the judge sentenced him to 130 months incarceration.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the co-conspirators' statements against Defendant were admissible because the evidence “stemmed from reasonably foreseeable buys and aided in proving the extent of the conspiracy.” The court also found that evidence of the controlled buy was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction and that the district court did not commit any error when calculating Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Travis Ferguson" on Justia Law

After a civilian reported a vehicle traveling the wrong way on the highway, a state trooper located Defendant driving a vehicle matching the description. The trooper, who had a K9 unit with him, initiated a traffic stop after noticing the vehicle’s tint appeared to violate state law. During the stop, the trooper discovered the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. While the trooper was waiting for backup, he asked Defendant to consent to a K9 search of the vehicle. The defendant declined; however, relying on highway patrol protocol, the trooper proceeded with the K9 search. The K9 unit indicated the presence of narcotics, prompting the trooper to search the vehicle, where he discovered cocaine, methamphetamine and a firearm. A subsequent inventory search of the vehicle revealed two additional handguns and a small amount of methamphetamine. Several days later, the trooper performed a second inventory search, locating 459 grams of methamphetamine.The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress based on the prolonged nature of the initial traffic stop and various departures from highway patrol policy in conducting the inventory search.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the traffic stop was not impermissibly extended due to the discovery of narcotics and a firearm. The court also held that the trooper substantially complied with departmental policy in conducting the inventory searches. Finally, the court rejected Defendant’s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on claims the prosecutor violated the prohibition against mentioning the defendant’s failure to testify. View "United States v. Jose Perez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor and interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; there was no error in requiring defendant to submit to polygraph tests; the award of restitution was proper under the Abolish Human Trafficking Act; and there was no abuse of discretion in determining the amount of restitution. View "United States v. Kempter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release and imposition of a three year prison sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not impermissibly lengthened defendant's sentence so he could participate in a sex offender treatment program, in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 335 (2011). In this case, the district court based its sentencing decision on the danger defendant posed to children in the community and the fact that his continued violations showed he was not amenable to supervision. Finally, 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 and did not err in imposing the statutory maximum. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for accessing the internet with intent to view child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence of 48 months in prison was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment or abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography. Any error in admitting an expert witness's testimony comparing finger and knuckle creases in sexually explicit photos with photos of defendant's fingers and knuckles was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. View "United States v. Red Legs" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant failed to present extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction. The court also concluded that a non-retroactive change in law, whether offered alone or in combination with other other factors, cannot contribute to a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. U.S. v. Crandall, 25 F.4th 582, 586 (8th Cir. 2022). View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, the district court dismissed most of his claims but granted a certificate of appealability on whether plaintiff's attorney failed to file a direct appeal despite instructions to.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court's factual finding—that plaintiff did not direct counsel to file a notice of appeal within 14 days of sentencing—was based on a reasonable credibility determination. On the record, the court found no clear error in the finding that plaintiff did not instruct his attorney to file a notice of appeal within the deadline for doing so. View "Dressen v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for production and attempted production of child pornography and extortion. The court concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to admit a text message confession as unreliable, and the extrinsic evidence lacked probative value and was not relevant. The court also concluded that there was no error in limiting defendant's use of the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b).The court rejected defendant's Batson challenge and concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government's race-neutral reason was not pretextual; the district court did not clearly err in finding that PJ 5's equivocation and indecisiveness regarding whether she could follow the law was a nondiscriminatory race-neutral reason for the strike; and the district court did not clearly err in finding these were nondiscriminatory race-neutral reasons to strike PJ 14. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to strike. View "United States v. Cumbie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that trial counsel's failure to object to a sentencing enhancement, based on an Eighth Circuit decision that controlled the issue at the time of sentencing but was later overruled by the court en banc, United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018), does not satisfy the "prejudice" element of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "Collins v. United States" on Justia Law