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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 300 month sentence imposed after he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court concluded that, because the phones had evidentiary value independent of the data on the phones, the eight-month seizure of the devices before they were searched was not unreasonable. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's proposed instruction on multiple conspiracies where the evidence substantially pointed to a single conspiracy; there was no error in admitting evidence of defendant's drug trafficking activity in California when the activity was undertaken as part of the charged conspiracy; and there was no error in calculating the quantity of drugs. The court further concluded that the district court did not err by imposing sentencing enhancements under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm and USSG 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight. View "United States v. Burris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) and two counts of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm (Counts 2 and 3). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, the court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence that defendant was actively engaged in the use of a controlled substance during the time he possessed firearms in 2013 and 2016, thereby satisfying the requisite temporal nexus between gun possession and regular drug use required under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. The court also concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence that defendant knew his use of controlled substances (notably, marijuana) was unlawful.The court further concluded that the district court correctly merged Counts 1 and 2 for purposes of sentencing; the court remanded for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of one 120-month sentence for Counts 1 and 2; and vacated the district court's imposition of a third term of supervised release because the district court plainly erred when it imposed three terms of supervised release. Having examined the record, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by varying upward from the Guidelines range and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Carnes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon and drug user in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court's factual finding that the officers credibly testified to smelling burnt marijuana while driving behind defendant is not clearly erroneous. In this case, the district court's credibility finding was based on the consistency of the officers' testimony, the corroborating evidence, and the expert testimony. Furthermore, the district court also sufficiently explained its rejection of defendant's counterarguments. In the alternative, the court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the odor of burnt marijuana was coming from defendant's vehicle, rather than any other vehicle. View "United States v. Shumaker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's request for safety valve sentencing because the record supports the district court's determination that defendant was not credible in his safety valve interview. View "United States v. Trujillo-Linares" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction and that there was no error in the district court's calculation of methamphetamine attributable to him. After reviewing the evidence presented at trial and the arguments set forth at sentencing, the court found that there is nothing in the record which definitely and firmly illustrates that the lower court made a mistake. View "United States v. Orlando Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized through execution of a search warrant of his motel room, his statements to police during an interrogation, and an eyewitness identification. The court concluded that the information in the affidavit was stale where one of the charges against defendant was for a continuing offense, and there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause to search the motel room for firearms. The court also concluded that the district court did not not err in denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing where, even if the affidavit were supplemented by facts defendant contends were improperly omitted, a judge could reasonably conclude that probable cause existed for finding firearms in Room 220. The court further concluded that, it need not decide whether officers had consent to enter, because even if consent was lacking, the challenged evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Finally, the court concluded that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, and rejected defendant's challenge to the witness's identification from a mug shot. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempted coercion or enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(a). Defendant was sentenced to time served and 120 months' supervised release, including one year of home confinement. The government acknowledges that there was no procedural error, but contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the below-Guidelines sentence where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including his lack of a criminal history and his honorable military service. The court explained that the district court has wide latitude to weigh the sentencing factors, including the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and the Post Conviction Risk Assessment. The court rejected the government's remaining contentions to the contrary. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 360 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to production of child pornography. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for an offense involving "the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact," pursuant to USSG 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). The court also concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level enhancement for use of a computer to "solicit participation with a minor in sexually explicit conduct," USSG 2G2.1(b)(6)(B)(ii). View "United States v. Raiburn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of the career offender enhancement to defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The court concluded that the logic of its circuit precedent dictates that Iowa domestic abuse assault with intent to inflict serious injury is a crime of violence. Accordingly, there was no error in the district court's determination that defendant's prior conviction for Iowa domestic abuse assault qualified as a crime of violence. View "United States v. Tinlin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 28 month sentence imposed after he violated his fourth term of supervised release. Although the district court did not recite the guideline range at the hearing, the record shows that the advisory range was properly calculated in a violation worksheet that the probation office submitted to the court several days before the proceeding. The court has previously said that where the court has before it a revocation packet from the probation office that includes the proper guideline analysis, and the defendant requests a sentence recommended by the probation office, then there is no plain error in the court’s failure to mention the guidelines. In this case, the violation worksheet calculated the correct advisory range and defendant has failed to establish that the district court obviously failed to calculate and consider the guideline range.The court also concluded that there was no obvious error in the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, and defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a more favorable sentence. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable given his track record of incorrigibility and it was not unreasonable for the district court to impose a term of imprisonment that exceeded the advisory guideline range, discharging him from supervision. View "United States v. Elbert" on Justia Law