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

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

The plaintiff alleged that during the September 17, 2017 protests of the acquittal of a St. Louis police officer on murder charges, police officers violated his civil rights when they boxed or "kettled" him in with other protestors and then pepper-sprayed him, arrested him, and restrained him with zip ties. In the plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to indicate his seizure was unreasonable. With respect to the excessive force claims, based on the record and plaintiff's allegations, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the force used against the plaintiff was objectively reasonable. The plaintiff's claim of excessive force against the supervising police officers was sufficient at this stage of the case to defeat the officers' claims of qualified immunity. "There are simply too many unknowns and factual disputes" to determine as a matter of law that the subordinate police officers reasonably relied on their superiors' orders to arrest the crowd at the downtown intersection. View "Baude v. Leyshock" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of interstate stalking (Counts 1 and 2) and six counts related to his unlawful receipt and possession of firearms. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 420 months of imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of interstate stalking of the victim. The court explained that a single incident is sufficient to commit the offense. The court concluded that the government failed to show that defendant traveled in interstate commerce with the intent to harass another victim and therefore vacated one count. The court further concluded that even if the government used testimony from the first victim that it knew or should have known was false, defendant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the perjured testimony could have affected the verdict on Count 2. Consequently, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for receipt of child pornography, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in considering Dropbox files when it calculated defendant's offense level where defendant's Dropbox account stored "actual images and videos," not just URLs or hyperlinks. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a five-level sentencing enhancement for distribution in exchange for any valuable consideration under USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); for sadistic images and images showing sexual abuse of a toddler under USSG 2G2.2(b)(4); for possession of more than 600 images under USSG 2G2.2(b)(7)(D); and in denying defendant's request for a sentence reduction based on acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1. View "United States v. Hennings" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for five counts of producing child pornography because defendant's appeal of his sentence falls within the scope of his appeal waiver. The court reversed the district court's order regarding the $50,000 assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259A, and remanded for clarification based on the confusion regarding whether all of the assessment should be awarded as an assessment to the Child Pornography Victims Reserve or whether some part should be awarded as an assessment to the Reserve and some part awarded as restitution under section 2259 to the victims. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute it and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In this case, the district court remarked at the sentencing hearing that Sentencing Commission data showed that defendants like the defendant here received a sentence within the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range more often than not.The court concluded that even if the district court misapprehended nationwide sentencing statistics, it determined from its own, court-specific records that it did not often sentence ordinary career offenders below the Guidelines where they had "earned their stripes as a career offender" as defendant had. Therefore, the court concluded that any error did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceeding and thus was harmless. View "United States v. Shell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of attempting to entice a minor using the internet. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction where the charged offense does not require the involvement of an actual minor. The court explained that even where an undercover officer is playing the role of a minor, an offender commits the crime of attempted enticement under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) where he intends to entice a minor and engages in substantial conduct toward that end. In this case, defendant took substantial steps in furtherance of enticing the minor. View "United States v. Rajab" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his complaint as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court's statement that the dismissal counted as a strike would only make a difference, if at all, once defendant has passed the three-filings threshold, and even then, only if all three were dismissed. Then, and only then, will the number of strikes be ripe for adjudication. View "Gonzalez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 74 month sentence and fine imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to knowingly smuggle aliens into and throughout the United States in violation of law for commercial advantage and private financial gain. Defendant's conviction stemmed from him running a criminal enterprise that smuggled pregnant Marshallese women into the United States and profited by putting their infants up for adoption.The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where, as here, courts may vary upward based on factors already considered under the Guidelines if they determine the weight the Guidelines assigned to a particular factor was insufficient. In this case, the district court found that the Guidelines failed to adequately account for defendant's role as an attorney and public official, his role as a leader and organizer of the offense, and the duration of his crime. The court also concluded that the district court appropriately applied the unwarranted sentencing disparity factor under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). Finally, the district court did not clearly err by deciding to impose a fine and by imposing a fine within the Guidelines range. View "United States v. Petersen" on Justia Law