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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court concluded that the evidence in the record is sufficient for the jury to find that defendant's finished rifle meets the first part of the definition of firearm as set forth in section 921(a)(3); the jury was properly instructed that the interstate commerce element of the offense is satisfied if the firearm was transported in interstate commerce at some time during or before the defendant's possession of it; defendant's mistake of law and mistake of fact arguments are unavailing; and the jury was properly instructed on the elements of the crime in a manner that tracked the statute and was consistent with Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). View "United States v. Burning Breast" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) based on his involvement with the Crips street gang. The court concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that defendant's attempts to commit state-law crimes could serve as RICO predicate offenses. Even assuming, that the reference to Count III in Instruction No. 35 created an obvious error in the instructions as a whole, the court concluded that defendant has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. In this case, there is no reasonable probability that the jury, having found defendant not guilty of attempted assault with a dangerous weapon, inconsistently relied on attempted assault with a dangerous weapon to convict him of the RICO conspiracy.However, the court vacated defendant's 84 month sentence, concluding that the district court mistakenly treated aggravated assault with a firearm as an act of racketeering for purposes of the guidelines, and this error affected the guideline range. Furthermore, the error was not harmless, and thus a remand for resentencing is required. View "United States v. Haynie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude the jail calls because the government promptly provided defendant with the evidence as soon as it became aware of its existence and obtained the calls; there was no error in refusing to admit testimony from defendant's proposed expert witness on matters of law where, under court precedent, informing the jury about the law is reserved for the trial judge; there was no error in rejecting defendant's two proposed jury instructions; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where a rational jury could have readily inferred defendant's knowledge that he was a prohibited person from the circumstances. View "United States v. Walking Bull" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for making false statements to licensed firearms dealers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A). Prior to trial, the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charges on Second Amendment grounds. Defendant argues that section 924(a)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him because it conditioned the purchase of a firearm on a statement regarding his prior involuntary commitment to a mental institution.The court concluded that defendant failed to raise his as-applied section 924(a)(1)(A) challenge in the district court and thus forfeited his claim. The court also concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where his as-applied challenge to the statute fails under the plain error analysis because it is far from plain or obvious that the Second Amendment protects defendant's conduct - making a false statement or disregarding ATF Form 4473 to obtain a firearm. View "United States v. Lehman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture. The court concluded that there was no error in the denial of defendant's motion to suppress where defendant failed to preserve this issue when he did not identify the seized items he wanted suppressed, as District of Minnesota Local Rule 12.1(c)(1)(B) requires; the court need not consider whether the district court erred in concluding the automobile exception applied because the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle; and the information provided by the confidential informant was sufficiently reliable to support the presumptively valid warrant.The court also concluded that defendant's 204 month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court expressly considered the sentences imposed on other conspirators, noted significant ways in which defendant was not similarly situated for sentencing purposes, and granted a substantial downward variance from the advisory guidelines range. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order declining to impose a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to reduce defendant's sentence where the district court noted that defendant's 300-month sentence is well-below his guideline range, characterized his criminal history as "extensive and violent," and exercised its broad discretion to forego a sentence reduction on that basis. The court explained that, although the order did not explicitly address all of the arguments defendant made in support of his motion, not every reasonable argument advanced by a defendant requires a specific rejoinder by the judge. The court stated that the district court was uniquely positioned to consider the many factors necessary in exercising its ultimate discretion, and nothing in the First Step Act required the district court to grant defendant relief based on defendant's challenge to his career offender status. View "United States v. Shepard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Merrett and Frencher's convictions and sentences for crimes related to their membership in a drug trafficking organization.The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a wiretap, concluding that the wiretap authorization was valid where the government established necessity and probable cause that the phone was connected to criminal activity; there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Frencher was riding because the police had reasonable grounds to believe, based on the wiretap, that he was on his way to commit burglary; the search was not unreasonably extended; and the police had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle.The court concluded that Frencher and Merrett's sentences were not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not clearly err in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, the district court considered Merrett's mitigation arguments and his sentence was not extremely disparate from Frencher's sentence. View "United States v. Merrett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief as procedurally defaulted. In this case, petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was first procedurally defaulted on appeal, not at the initial-review collateral proceeding, which makes the Martinez exception inapplicable to petitioner's case. Therefore, with no excuse for the procedural default, federal habeas review of the claim is barred. View "Hartman v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where petitioner challenged his 2000 felon-in-possession conviction under Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). The court agreed with the district court that petitioner failed to show that 28 U.S.C. 2255's remedy was ineffective or inadequate to test the legality of his detention—a prerequisite in his case to habeas relief. In this case, section 2255's remedy was itself perfectly capable of facilitating petitioner's argument where section 2255 authorizes a motion challenging a sentence upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the laws of the United States. View "Jones v. Hendrix" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and two counts of money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give defendant's good-faith instruction. The court explained that, even assuming that defendant's instruction was timely requested, supported by the evidence, and a correct statement of the law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by omitting it from the jury instructions because the instructions as a whole adequately submitted the issues to the jury by properly instructing the jury on the intent element of wire fraud. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in ordering defendant to forfeit $91,586 where he acquired the sum because it was in his bank account and whether he used the money for his "personal benefit" is irrelevant. View "United States v. Asomani" on Justia Law