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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a 24-month sentence after revocation of defendant's term of supervised release. After defendant was involved in a fight outside of a strip club, defendant's probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release.The court agreed with the district court's rejection of defendant's self-defense argument, seeing no self-defense justification that warranted defendant leaving his vehicle to attack others. Moreover, the assault on defendant at the strip club was both temporally and spatially distinct from the assault that defendant committed in the truck parking lot. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug-related evidence that police uncovered during a traffic stop. The court agreed with the government that the officer who pulled over defendant and others in the vehicle did not extend the traffic stop until he asked the driver of the vehicle if there was anything illegal in the car roughly six minutes into the encounter. In this case, when the officer asked his initial series of travel-related questions between five and six minutes into the encounter, he was still handling the matter for which the stop was made -- issuing a ticket for the unlit license plate violation. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the officer needed reasonable suspicion of another crime to extend the stop when he began asking travel-related questions five minutes into the encounter. The court also agreed with the government that by the time the officer asked if there was anything illegal in the car, he had the reasonable suspicion required to extend the stop. View "United States v. Callison" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana. The court rejected defendant's contention that his prosecution violated principles of federalism because marijuana production is legal under Oregon law. The court concluded that defendant's prosecution does not offend principles of federalism and thus the challenge to his conviction fails.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in its supplemental instructions to the jury regarding the conspiracy, and the district court's response to a jury question properly instructed the jury. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in applying a USSG 3B1.1(b) enhancement based on defendant's role as a manager or supervisor, and in denying safety valve relief. View "United States v. Maupin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for receiving a firearm while under indictment. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; the district court did not violate his constitutional right to self-representation where the district court acted well within its discretion in denying defendant's eve-of-trial motion for a lengthy continuance and the district court had given an explicit warning that a continuance would not be granted; the district court had a sound basis for its decision to strike a juror for cause where the juror was unable to state he would serve fairly and impartially; the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decisions; and the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence even though it imposed a significant upward variance and consecutive sentences. View "United States v. Ganter" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of cyberstalking, and two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's guilty plea for attempted sexual exploitation. In this case, the government explained that defendant had captured several videos of the victim with hidden cameras, and defendant agreed with the facts surrounding all three of his charges. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that his 30-month sentence for cyberstalking should run consecutive to his 210-month sentence for attempted sexual exploitation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McGarvey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. In 2018, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to 80 months' imprisonment. In 2020, defendant filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) on the basis that he was at risk for severe COVID-19 symptoms if he contracted the disease.The court concluded that defendant failed to exhaust his remedies because, at the time he filed his motion for compassionate release, he had not filed a request that the BOP bring a motion for compassionate release on his behalf. The court declined to create an equitable exception to the mandatory claim-processing rule. In regard to defendant's contention that the Attorney General's March 2020 memorandum made any request futile, the court held that it has no ability to make an exception for this type of futility. Furthermore, the district court correctly determined that it could not grant defendant's request that he be placed on home confinement for the balance of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(2). View "United States v. Houck" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. The court concluded that the district court did not err by determining that the Act did not change defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range given his status as a career offender. In this case, the district court explained that it would not exercise its substantial discretion to reduce defendant's sentence because the Act did not affect defendant's Guidelines range—which ultimately depended on the application of USSG 4B1.1(c)(3) to his firearms count. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court incorrectly treated him as a career offender because one of his underlying Arkansas convictions is not a crime of violence. The court explained that, even assuming defendant is correct in his assertions about Arkansas law, the problem with his argument is his unspoken premise that, in First Step Act resentencing, a district court is required to reassess earlier sentencing decisions unaffected by the Act. View "United States v. Burnell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a warrantless search of his vehicle and subsequent search of his apartment. In this case, defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i).The court concluded that the officers indisputably had probable cause to search defendant's vehicle, and an easily repairable flat tire did not cause the vehicle to lose its inherent mobility. Therefore, the automobile exception applied and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence resulting from the vehicle search. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Franks hearing where the court agreed with the district court that defendant's assertions failed to show that an investigator deliberately or recklessly omitted various details from his affidavit. Even if defendant had made a sufficient showing of deliberate or reckless omissions, the affidavit contained other information that was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court imposed an upward variance in light of the serious nature of the underlying events. In this case, the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Short" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of child pornography. In this case, defendant was convicted of five counts related to child pornography.The court concluded that, based on the facts, there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in defendant's vehicle and the agents had probable cause to search the vehicle. Because the automobile exception allowed the officers to search defendant's van and to seize any materials that they had probable cause to believe were contraband, seizing defendant's devices from his van was constitutional. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for attempted distribution of child pornography. View "United States v. Keck" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and 24-month sentence. The court concluded that defendant has not shown that the district court clearly erred in its finding that he, more likely than not, committed a new state crime by committing a willful injury in violation of Iowa Code Sec. 708.4(1)-(2). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's supervised release. The court also concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered defendant's strong work ethic and consistent employment, but also considered his repeated supervised-release violations and his conduct in the alley fight. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing other sentencing factors more heavily. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law