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

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

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