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

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

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's revocation sentence and remanded for resentencing on a closed record. The court concluded that the government lacked a reasonably satisfactory explanation for the assault victim's unavailability at the revocation hearing; the government failed to present corroborating evidence to show reliability of the oral, unsworn accounts, and photos produced at the hearing; and thus the district court erred by relying on hearsay to establish that defendant had committed a new crime. Furthermore, the district court's error was not harmless. Finally, the court granted defendant's request to remand without expanding the record. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact of his 12-year-old daughter. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where there was no plain error and the appeal waiver is therefore enforceable. On this record, the court explained that there is simply no chance that, if defendant had timely objected and government counsel had reaffirmed the government's promise in Paragraph G to recommend a five year sentence, the outcome of the sentence proceeding would have been different. View "United States v. Helper" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 180 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court calculated defendant's Sentencing Guidelines offense level as 30 and his criminal history category as VI, which yielded a sentencing range of 180-210 months. However, the district court ruled that defendant's five prior convictions qualified as predicate convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The court rejected defendant's contention that the ACCA violates his equal protection rights and concluded that defendant has not presented any proof of a discriminatory intent or purpose in the enactment of the ACCA or its application to his case. As to defendant's claim regarding differing treatment of juvenile convictions, the court concluded that defendant's predicate convictions do not include any "acts of juvenile delinquency" under the ACCA. The court also concluded that, even if defendant's Wisconsin robbery conviction does not qualify as a predicate offense, defendant's remaining convictions were sufficient to apply the ACCA. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's request for credit for time served on a prior conviction, and he provided no proof for his claim that the government improperly delayed bringing charges against him. View "United States v. Ronning" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (Count 2), and was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment.The court found that the initial encounter between defendant and the officers was consensual and thus his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. In this case, the totality of the circumstances indicated that the officers' retention of defendant's identification did not restrain his liberty; the officers did not activate their patrol car's lighter or siren, or physically touch defendant; and the officers did not brandish their weapons or threaten arrest. The court also concluded that the officers did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights during the first encounter, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the statements. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence found in defendant's car where defendant did not contest that the drug dog's positive alert on his car gave the officers probable cause to search it. View "United States v. Lillich" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was removeable and denial of his request for a form of cancellation of removal available to children who have been battered by parents who are lawful permanent residents. The court concluded that petitioner failed to exhaust his claim that the BIA engaged in improper fact finding, the issue is not before the court, and the issue will not be considered. Although the court has jurisdiction to review the predicate legal question whether the Board properly applied the law in determining eligibility, the court lacked jurisdiction to review an ultimate decision denying cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. View "Mencia-Medina v. Garland" on Justia Law