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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition, namely, five .45-caliber shell casings found at the scene of the shooting. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that defendant was the shooter and that the shell casings were knowingly discharged from the shooter's firearm. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion to control closing arguments when it did not sua sponte challenge the prosecutor's rebuttal closing arguments. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantial upward variance and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Obi" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals a portion of the judgment in his criminal case imposing an assessment of $5,000 under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The court concluded that a remand for further proceedings is warranted where defendant has established that the district court relied on a plainly erroneous understanding of his net worth in determining whether he was indigent. Furthermore, defendant was prejudiced by this factual error and the court exercised its discretion to correct the factual error. View "United States v. Ohlmeier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in a case where he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing heroin. The court concluded that the information contained in the affidavit supporting the search warrant application was sufficient to establish probable cause. In this case, even though the indictment cited 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), the indictment adequately informed defendant that he was being charged with conduct prohibited in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(i)—that is, knowingly possessing, in furtherance of drug trafficking. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Lopez-Castillo pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as both a felon and a domestic violence misdemeanant, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), (g)(9); 924(a)(2). The district court concluded Lopez-Castillo’ had two prior convictions for crimes of violence (U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2)): an Iowa arson offense and his Arizona aggravated assault offense, resulting in a recommended sentencing range of 110-120 months of imprisonment. The court sentenced Lopez-Castillo to 102 months of imprisonment. Lopez-Castillo appealed, challenging only the conclusion that aggravated assault under Ariz. Stat. 13-1204(B) qualifies as a crime of violence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. One element of aggravated assault under Arizona law requires a defendant to have “intentionally or knowingly impede[d] the normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck or by obstructing the nose and mouth either manually or through the use of an instrument.” Lopez-Castillo necessarily used force to satisfy this element because to be convicted he must have either “appl[ied] pressure to the throat or neck” of another person or “obstruct[ed] the nose and mouth” of another person. That element categorically entails force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person. Lopez-Castillo necessarily used physical force, knowingly or intentionally. View "United States v. Lopez-Castillo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for theft of government property, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. In this case, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that inflation of the billing and payroll numbers was a coordinated effort, and that defendant was behind the theft. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. View "United States v. Njoroge" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the suppression ruling and the convictions for receipt of child pornography, but remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate one of the possession convictions. The court concluded that the probation officers had objective bases to suspect defendant's vehicle contained evidence of release violations, and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. The court declined to adjudicate defendant's premature ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.However, the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents convictions under both 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) and 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) for the possession of a single material containing child pornography. Because the district court imposed concurrent sentences, the court concluded that the appropriate remedy is to remand with directions to vacate one of the multiplicitous convictions. View "United States v. Kuhnel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, concluding that application of the federal firearms statute did not violate his rights under the Second Amendment. The court rejected defendant's contention that the location of his firearm in the home for the alleged purpose of self-defense, by itself, makes 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him.In regard to sentencing, the district court classified defendant as an armed career criminal based on three prior convictions, including one for terroristic threats under Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 28-311.01. Because that offense does not qualify as a violent felony, the court concluded that defendant had not sustained the requisite three prior convictions, and he must be resentenced without the armed career criminal classification. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a felon in possession of a firearm offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his multiple prior felony convictions, including three predicate serious drug offenses. The court rejected defendant's contention that his ACCA enhancement based on a prior juvenile offense violated the Eighth Amendment. Rather, under this court's established precedents, using the juvenile conviction as an ACCA predicate does not violate the Eighth Amendment, U.S. v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546,553 (8th Cir. 2009) and U.S. v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1349 (2017). View "United States v. Winfrey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's below-guidelines sentence of 198 months in prison for his drug-related conviction under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to apply defendant's request for a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2 where defendant cannot show clear error and the evidence supports the district court's factual findings of defendant's essential participation in the drug trafficking operation. View "United States v. Hernandez Lopez" on Justia Law

Cartwright, charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), was transferred from state to federal custody for arraignment, then transferred back to state custody in violation of the anti-shuttling provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). As required by the IADA, the district court dismissed the indictment. Cartwright argued that the dismissal should be with prejudice.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. When the United States is the “receiving state” under the IADA, the court may dismiss an indictment with or without prejudice and must weigh three non-exclusive factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case; and the impact of a re-prosecution on the administration of the IADA and on the administration of justice. The crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm is a serious offense. The court properly considered Cartwright’s criminal history because it related to his possible sentence. Cartwright was transferred due to an administrative error. There was no evidence of bad faith or negligent pattern. Because the violation was inadvertent, dismissing this case without prejudice does not undermine the IADA. If further violations occur, Cartwright will have recourse; a court will take into account the repeat nature of the violation. The administration of justice is better aided by not allowing defendants to escape prosecution on serious charges because of a technical IADA violation. View "United States v. Cartwright" on Justia Law