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

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity and remanded for resentencing. The court concluded that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(g) was violated when the probation officer did not submit the revised PSR and unresolved objections to defendant and his attorney at least 7 days before sentencing. The court explained that, without critical fact allegations in the revised PSR relied upon by the government, and denied by defendant, all the district court had to rely on for a very substantial upward variance was a single admitted act of "sexual activity" that made defendant subject to a minimum 10-year sentence. In these circumstances, the court has no reasonable basis to conclude whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence after a sentencing hearing at which those allegations were either set aside as unproved, or were found to be probably accurate after a proper evidentiary inquiry. View "United States v. Berrier" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The Eighth Circuit enforced defendant's appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the arguments raised in this appeal. In this case, defendant does not dispute that the statements he made at his change-of-plea hearing, which carry a strong presumption of verity, demonstrate he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver. Furthermore, the appeal waiver falls within the scope of the waiver. Finally, enforcing defendant's appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed by the district court after this court's remand for resentencing on his conviction for firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant was not entitled to a reduction for possessing the ammunition for a lawful sporting purpose under USSG 2K2.1(b)(2). The court noted that any error in the district court's determination was harmless in any event, as the district court stated it would have given defendant the same sentence even if it had found the reduction applied. The court also concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. View "United States v. Sholley-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of fentanyl resulting in death and conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal where the government's evidence overwhelmingly supports defendant's conviction. Furthermore, there was no error in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors as these claims raise for the first time on appeal would not be considered. However, the court remanded to the district court with directions to amend the judgment to conform with defendant's indictment and the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Broeker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In regard to the suppression motions, the court concluded that defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his hospital room and thus the officer did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights by entering the room. Because the officer lawfully entered his hospital room and his clothes were in plain view, the court concluded that defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court also concluded that defendant's statements to the police were voluntary in light of the totality of the circumstances where law enforcement did not overbear defendant's will.The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the gun had been in or affected interstate commerce. The court upheld the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement for using or possessing any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense, aggravated assault in this case. Finally, even assuming the district court properly considered the probable-cause section of the complaint and nonelemental facts, it did not err in concluding that defendant committed the assaults on the same occasion and that he does not qualify as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Mattox" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging petitioner's conviction for distributing heroin resulting in death of another person. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition because he failed to establish that section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. In this case, petitioner's impediment to relief was existing caselaw, not the remedy provided by section 2255. Furthermore, because the saving clause enacted by Congress only provides relief when section 2255's remedy itself is inadequate or ineffective, the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition. Without jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition, the district court could not entertain the petition and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing. View "Crayton v. United States" on Justia Law

Cline pleaded guilty to knowing receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), with an appeal waiver. His court-appointed counsel filed an “Anders” motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue. The Eighth Circuit agreed. Cline had moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was not given adequate time to read and understand the plea agreement, and that his plea was therefore not knowing and voluntary. Cline had also argued that his medications’ side effects interfered with his ability to make a knowing and intelligent plea. Cline’s testimony was inconsistent with his statements under oath at the plea hearing, which were found to be credible. It would be frivolous to argue on appeal that the district court erred in finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary and in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. There is no non-frivolous basis on which to challenge the appeal waiver with respect to Cline’s sentence, which was at the low end of the guideline range proposed in Cline’s sentencing memorandum; there is no evidence that the court considered an impermissible factor. The district court sustained Cline’s only objection and adopted the range urged by Cline. View "United States v. Cline" on Justia Law

During an investigation of a peer-to-peer computer file-sharing network being used to acquire child pornography, officers learned from Sandell's neighbor that Sandell had asked to use their Wi-Fi to access the internet to register his sex offender status. Officers knocked on Sandell’s door, identified themselves, conducted a sweep of the home, then asked Sandell where he would like to talk. Sandell invited them inside. The officers explained they were attempting to obtain a search warrant for Sandell’s home but that Sandell was not under arrest, was not obligated to talk to them, and was free to leave. Officers supervised Sandell while he moved around the house. Sandell admitted to downloading child pornography. He voluntarily turned over a camera and thumb drives, stating that he was likely facing 15 years' imprisonment. The officers ultimately obtained a warrant and collected Sandell’s laptop, thumb drives, and DVDs.Sandell was later charged with distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Sandell unsuccessfully moved to suppress statements made at his home. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Sandell was not in custody; the officers did not need to advise Sandell of his Miranda rights. Officers informed Sandell repeatedly he was not under arrest and was not obligated to speak to them. Sandell retained his freedom of movement and voluntarily answered questions. Officers did not use strong-arm or deceptive tactics. Sandell was not immediately arrested. View "United States v. Sandell" on Justia Law

Officer Deaver learned Hansen's girlfriend had purchased a shotgun, listing her address as the home she shared with Hansen. Knowing Hansen had a prior felony conviction, Deaver rode to the property, on a pickup day, in a garbage truck operated by J&J Sanitation. Deaver retrieved a trash container outside the garage and emptied the contents. Officers sorted the trash and found gun catalogs, a plastic baggie containing marijuana, and a transaction history documenting Hansen’s purchases of gun parts. A Nebraska state judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of Hansen’s residence, where law officers seized firearms and ammunition.Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, Hansen unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence and sought a “Franks” hearing, alleging that Deaver omitted material information from the warrant affidavit when he failed to mention that his trash container was located on private property. Hansen asserted he had an agreement with J&J not to pick up his trash unless he moved the container “to a public property location” 200 feet from his garage. Hansen claimed he told J&J not to use the “driveway” leading to his house. The district court sentenced Hansen to 36 months' imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that it was not clear whether the trash was beside a private driveway or a public street and that Deaver had no way of knowing about any agreement Hansen might have had with J&J. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence of six counts for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for an entrapment instruction because defendant never produced evidence of inducement. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial where, even assuming certain testimony violated the stipulation as to his status of a felon was improper, the weight of the evidence produced at trial demonstrates that the testimony was not prejudicial.In regard to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that defendant has not offered a reason to suspect the government purposefully facilitated the purchase of additional guns solely to enhance his sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. In this case, the record reflects the district court's thoughtful weighing of the appropriate factors, and the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offenses in conjunction with the other aggravating factors identified at sentencing. View "United States v. John" on Justia Law