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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop where the record supports the district court's conclusion that defendant consented to the search within the average time for a routine traffic stop and that police obtained consent to search within the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the traffic stop. Furthermore, once police lawfully secured consent to search, any delay occasioned by the search did not constitute an unlawful extension of the seizure. The court is not convinced that the constitutional requirement of reasonableness mandates that police use only computer-generated warning tickets, and there is no showing in any event that using a computer would have produced the warning within thirty-seven seconds before defendant consented to the search. The court explained that, once defendant gave consent to search, it did not matter what method was used to generate the warning ticket, because defendant necessarily consented to an extension of the traffic stop while the search was conducted.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6) where it did not amount to impermissible double counting. In any event, the court concluded that the district court varied downward to offset the increase, leaving defendant no basis to complain. View "United States v. Salkil" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 420-month sentence, following two remands for resentencing, for multiple drug and firearm counts. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant was responsible for a drug equivalency of 1,000 to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana, resulting in a base offense level of 30 pursuant to USSG 2D1.1(c)(5); in finding that defendant maintained a premises for manufacturing and distributing a controlled substance ("stash house") under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12); and in finding that defendant committed the offenses as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood under USSG 2D1.1(b)(14)(E) (2014). View "United States v. McArthur" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The court has clarified that, while the district court may consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in exercising its First Step Act discretion, the Act does not require it to do so. The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering the impact on the Act of defendant's guidelines range. In this case, the entire sentencing record, including the prior motions for sentence reduction under guidelines amendments, supports the finding that defendant was responsible for 5.268 kilograms of crack cocaine and therefore the bottom of the amended range under the Act would remain 360 months. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in failing to consider defendant's request for compassionate release where he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "United States v. Milton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress geolocation data from his cell phone and his Google email account. The court concluded that officers were entitled to rely on the magistrate's nexus finding, and thus the Leon good faith exception applies to the warrants. The court also rejected defendant's contention that his trial was spoiled by the cumulative effect of a few evidentiary rulings. The court explained that, even if all of this evidence was excluded, the core facts supporting the verdict remain. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, concluding that the district court erred in determining that defendant remains subject to a mandatory life sentence. The court explained that defendant's offense of conviction—not the underlying drug quantity—determines his applicable statutory sentencing range. In this case, the district court erred in determining that defendant remained subject to a mandatory life sentence based on defendant's conduct rather than the offense of conviction, and the district court erroneously concluded that relief was categorically unavailable because of the drug quantity. The court remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise its discretion in imposing a reduced sentence. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a habeas action alleging that he received ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel when his lawyer failed to investigate potential impeachment evidence of his own expert witness, and that his death sentence was unconstitutional due to flaws in the jury instructions. The district court agreed and vacated petitioner's death sentence.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment vacating petitioner's death sentence, concluding that counsel was not deficient by reasonably relying on the professional community to vet an expert. Furthermore, petitioner cannot show that, under the circumstances, no competent lawyer could have made the choice to trust the legal community's appraisal of the witness. Even if further investigation was more prudent, it is not clear that the investigation should have covered the witness's falsified lab reports. Therefore, petitioner did not overcome the presumption that counsel performed reasonably by not investigating the witness's credentials.The court also concluded that there was no substantial likelihood that the calling of an alternative psychiatric witness would have led to a different result; the state habeas court did not err in finding that petitioner was not prejudiced by sentencing counsel's failure to call a psychiatrist, and post-conviction counsel was not ineffective by failing to raise the issue; and the district court erred in concluding that the sentencing instructions violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and that Missouri's capital sentencing system violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). View "McLaughlin v. Precythe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 180-month sentence for offenses involving drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's pre-trial motion for disclosure of coconspirator statements where defendant did not object to the magistrate judge's order and thus he waived his right to review. Even if the court excused defendant's waiver, the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion. In this case, the magistrate judge recognized appropriately the burden that would be placed on the government by the pre-trial identification of coconspirator statements and the availability of the Bell procedure. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion.The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's buyer-seller instruction regarding the drug trafficking conspiracy and there was no plain error under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion. Defendant's remaining argument regarding his sentence is foreclosed by circuit precedent. View "United States v. Merrett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 180-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant shot the victim. Taken as a whole, the forensic evidence, expert testimony, and lay witness testimony were sufficient to support the district court's finding and its corresponding application of the sentencing guidelines. View "United States v. Quinto-Pascual" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and violating his supervised release. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by double-counting where defendant's sentences penalized distinct aspects of his conduct and distinct harms. In this case, the Sentencing Guidelines instruct courts to do what the district court did here: (1) add criminal history points because defendant committed the firearm offense while on supervised release; and (2) sentence him consecutively for the firearm offense and the revocation. View "United States v. Roe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 360-month sentence for unlawfully possessing a gun. Defendant's conviction stemmed from a botched gun sale to a confidential informant.The court concluded that the district court did abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant's six past felony convictions where the evidence was material and showed defendant's intent to possess it. Furthermore, the district court's limiting instruction diminished any danger of unfair prejudice from the admission of all six prior bad acts. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mere-presence instruction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's upward variance did not amount to a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Drew" on Justia Law