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

The case revolves around Brandon Manning, who was convicted of two counts of Possession of Child Pornography. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had provided a tip that a Google subscriber, linked to Manning's accounts, had downloaded images of child pornography. A search warrant was executed at Manning's apartment, where officers seized his cellphone and a hard drive. A forensic examination of these devices revealed thousands of images and videos containing child pornography. The government also discovered incriminating writing on the back cover of the broken phone, which was disclosed to Manning just before the trial.The district court allowed the government to present evidence regarding the writing and its meaning, despite Manning's objection to the untimely disclosure. The jury found Manning guilty, and he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Manning appealed his conviction and sentence, challenging the admission of his prior Iowa conviction and the district court’s sanction for the government’s untimely disclosure of evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Manning's prior conviction qualifies as "child molestation" under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, even if the categorical approach was applied. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to introduce evidence of the late-disclosed writing on the back cover of the broken cellphone. The court found that Manning had not shown that his defense was prejudiced and that a continuance allowing him to conduct his own investigation would have remedied the alleged prejudice. The court also upheld the application of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and the calculation of Manning's criminal history category. View "U.S. v. Manning" on Justia Law

Anthony Wings, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition. During sentencing, the district court determined that Wings's base offense level was twenty due to a prior felony conviction for a crime of violence. This prior conviction was for a second-degree domestic assault in Missouri in 2011. The presentence report stated that Wings had attempted to cause physical injury by choking a woman, D.G. Wings did not object to this characterization of his prior offense.The district court adopted the presentence report's recommendation, which led to a higher advisory guideline range for sentencing. Wings appealed, arguing that the record did not establish that his prior offense constituted a crime of violence. He claimed that the district court erred by relying on the presentence report's reference to allegations in "court records," as the report did not specify that these records were the type a court could rely on in determining whether the prior conviction satisfies the relevant definition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, as Wings had not objected to the prior felony determination at the district court level. The government moved the court to take judicial notice of the charging document, guilty plea, and state-court judgment that established Wings's domestic assault conviction. The court agreed to take judicial notice, as Wings did not dispute the authenticity of the documents and there was no reason to doubt their accuracy.The court concluded that Wings's prior offense was indeed a crime of violence under the applicable sentencing guideline. The court affirmed the district court's determination of Wings's base offense level and the judgment of the district court. The court granted the motion to take judicial notice and denied as moot the alternative motion to supplement the record. View "United States v. Wings" on Justia Law

Ashena Laquita Tucker Jackson was convicted for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The investigation began after law enforcement received information that she and her husband were distributing drugs from their home. A search warrant executed on her residence revealed firearms, drugs, and evidence of drug sales. Tucker Jackson pled guilty and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. She appealed her sentence, arguing that the district court miscalculated her United States Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed an unreasonable sentence.The district court calculated Tucker Jackson's base offense level based on her previous felony controlled substance conviction and assessed several enhancements, including a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with felony drug trafficking. Tucker Jackson challenged these calculations, arguing that she was a mere drug user rather than a drug trafficker and that she did not write the letters attempting to obtain synthetic marijuana while in custody. The district court rejected her arguments and imposed a 120-month sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not err in calculating Tucker Jackson's base offense level and that sufficient evidence existed to support the four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with felony drug trafficking. The court also found no error in the district court's decision to deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's imposition of a 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Garland Joseph Nelson was convicted of mail fraud and being a felon in possession of a firearm, following a cattle fraud scheme he operated in Missouri. Nelson received cattle from Diemel’s Livestock, a company owned by brothers Justin and Nicholas Diemel, with the agreement to feed and sell the cattle after they had grown. However, Nelson failed to properly care for the cattle, resulting in many deaths. Instead of disclosing the loss, Nelson continued to accept more cattle and sell them under the pretense of the original agreement. Nelson also engaged in similar fraudulent conduct with farmer David Foster in Kansas and farm owner John Gingerich in Missouri.Nelson was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $260,925.07 in restitution by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Nelson appealed the restitution order, arguing that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove loss amounts by a preponderance of the evidence and that the restitution award to Diemel’s Livestock would result in double recovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution order. The court found that Nelson failed to object to the factual allegations regarding the loss amounts outlined in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), and thus the district court did not err in accepting the unobjected-to loss amounts. The court also disagreed with Nelson's argument that the restitution order amounted to an impermissible double recovery, as the settlement agreement expressly stated that Diemel’s Livestock would not recover damages under the settlement, and Nelson did not present evidence that Diemel’s Livestock received any other compensation in connection with the fraud alleged in this case. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Steven Barros Pinto was convicted on multiple counts related to the importation and distribution of drugs, following a nineteen-day trial. The evidence presented at trial established a drug distribution and importation conspiracy led by Jason Berry and Daniel Ceron, who operated a drug-trafficking operation via the dark web from a Canadian prison. They recruited distributors online, including Anthony Gomes and Brandon Hubbard, who distributed fentanyl shipped from China. Pinto, a childhood friend of Gomes, initially declined to join the operation but later contacted Gomes to distribute pills supplied by Ceron. Pinto became an integral part of the fentanyl pill production and distribution network, utilizing others to assist in distribution and financial transactions in multiple states.Pinto was charged in the district of North Dakota on multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to import controlled substances, participation in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to launder money. Pinto appealed, arguing that venue was improper on the drug conspiracy counts and challenging his conviction on the money laundering conspiracy count. He also raised a Double Jeopardy argument as to the drug conspiracy counts and the CCE count.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of a single conspiracy, making venue proper in North Dakota. The court also found no grounds for reversal in Pinto’s challenge to the credibility of the government’s cooperating witnesses. Regarding Pinto’s challenge to his conviction on the money laundering conspiracy count, the court found that the indictment provided Pinto with sufficient notice of the charge. Finally, the court agreed with Pinto that his separate convictions and sentences on the drug conspiracy count and the CCE count violated the prohibition against Double Jeopardy. The court remanded to the district court to vacate Pinto’s conviction on either the drug conspiracy count or the CCE count and proceed to resentencing. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Pinto" on Justia Law

Jonathan Lee Sutton was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The case arose from two shooting incidents in Davenport, Iowa, where Sutton was identified as the shooter. Sutton was associated with a Tesla vehicle, which was found abandoned with ammunition visible. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a pistol, ammunition, and receipts for the firearm's recent purchase. Sutton, a previous felon, was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and pleaded guilty.The district court imposed three sex-offender-related special conditions of supervised release based on allegations that Sutton had committed incest, resulting in a child. The government claimed that the presentence investigation report (PSR) omitted this incestuous relationship. The probation office declined to amend the PSR, stating that the government's objections were commentary in nature. The court, however, expressed concern over the allegations and imposed the special conditions, offering Sutton an "escape valve" if he could prove he did not father a child incestuously.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the district court had abused its discretion. The court had used a probable cause standard instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard for judicial fact-finding at sentencing. The court's factual findings about Sutton's alleged incest and paternity were not supported by the sentencing record. The court also improperly shifted the burden of proof from the government to Sutton. The court vacated the sex-offender-related special conditions and remanded the case. View "United States v. Sutton" on Justia Law

Mani Panoam Deng was charged with being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Deng moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated the Second Amendment and was void for vagueness. He pleaded guilty unconditionally, but appealed, renewing his constitutional challenges and arguing that the court erred by deferring a complete decision on his motion to dismiss.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Deng's facial Second Amendment challenge and deferred ruling on his other claims, as they were tied to facts about his offense conduct that a jury needed to find. After Deng pleaded guilty, he appealed, renewing his constitutional challenges and arguing that the court erred by deferring a complete decision on his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that § 922(g)(3) is facially constitutional, citing a previous decision in United States v. Veasley. Deng's as-applied challenge was deemed waived due to his unconditional guilty plea. The court also rejected Deng's vagueness challenge, stating that a criminal statute is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause only if it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes or is so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement. The court found that § 922(g)(3) was not vague as applied to Deng's conduct. Deng's argument that the district court erred by deferring a ruling on his vagueness and as-applied Second Amendment challenges was also dismissed as he had waived this claim by pleading guilty. View "United States v. Deng" on Justia Law

Reginald Austin was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person after law enforcement found a loaded handgun in his pants during a traffic stop. Austin moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the officers unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop and lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the pat-down searches. The district court denied his motion and sentenced him to a 51-month term of imprisonment. The court added two points to his criminal history score pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e), based on his two prior qualifying convictions for crimes of violence. Austin appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, the government's comments during closing argument, and the court's application of § 4A1.1.The district court had denied Austin's motion to suppress the firearm, arguing that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged and the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective pat-down. Austin represented himself at trial, and a jury convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court determined Austin’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 51 to 63 months, based on a total offense level of 20 and criminal history category IV. The district court calculated a total of eight criminal history points arising from two Missouri Circuit Court cases. Austin now appeals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged and the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective pat-down. The court also found that the prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments were not improper and did not deprive Austin of a fair trial. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, rejecting Austin's argument that his prior convictions for crimes of violence occurred on the same occasion and therefore § 4A1.1(e) was inapplicable. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

Corey Lamar Cullar pleaded guilty to maintaining a home for the purpose of distributing controlled substances. The district court imposed a sentence of 240 months in prison, the maximum under the Guidelines. The court calculated Cullar's base offense level at 22, added levels for possessing a dangerous weapon, maintaining a drug premises, having an aggravating role in the offense, and using a minor or obstructing justice. The court then increased his offense level to 32 due to his status as a career offender and declined to give him a reduction for accepting responsibility.Cullar appealed, challenging the court's Guidelines calculation and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. He disputed the court's drug quantity finding, most of its sentencing enhancements, and its denial of a reduction for accepting responsibility. He also argued that the court did not sufficiently consider his mitigating circumstances, making his sentence substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that any error in the district court's drug quantity finding and sentencing enhancements did not affect Cullar's Guidelines range and was therefore harmless. The court also upheld the district court's denial of a reduction for accepting responsibility, finding that Cullar had obstructed justice after pleading guilty by leaking documents that identified a cooperator. Finally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the substantive reasonableness of Cullar's sentence, as it had considered all relevant factors and had not given undue weight to any improper or irrelevant factors. View "United States v. Cullar" on Justia Law

Gabriel Eduardo Lemoine and co-defendant Manuel Martinez were indicted on charges related to drug trafficking, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, distribution of methamphetamine, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine. Lemoine and Martinez had moved to Minnesota together, rented apartments and storage units, and were implicated in drug trafficking activities by a confidential informant. Lemoine, however, testified that he was unaware of Martinez's illegal activities.The district court granted Lemoine's motion for acquittal on the conspiracy charge, finding insufficient evidence to prove Lemoine's awareness or involvement in drug trafficking. The court narrowly rejected Lemoine's motion for acquittal on the remaining aiding and abetting counts. The jury found Lemoine guilty on three of the four counts, acquitting him on one charge of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Lemoine renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal and moved for a new trial after the jury verdict. The district court granted his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding no direct evidence that Lemoine knowingly aided in drug trafficking, and conditionally granted a new trial if its order of acquittal was overturned on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment of acquittal, finding that the district court had impermissibly reweighed the evidence and given Lemoine's testimony more weight than the inferences and evidence supporting the jury's verdict. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to find Lemoine had constructive possession of the drugs located in the storage units. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of a new trial, finding that the district court did not clearly or manifestly abuse its discretion in finding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Lemoine" on Justia Law