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

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release after defendant failed to comply with sex offender treatment, he had unapproved contact with minors, possessed an internet capable device, used the internet to view child pornography, and committed a new law violation for possessing child pornography.The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when it considered evidence derived from the polygraph answers even though his special condition stated that the results would not be used for the purpose of revoking supervised release. Rather, the court concluded that there is no evidence that the district court used any result of a polygraph examination. In this case, the district court only considered defendant's admissions to his probation officer about his contact with the minor and the grandmother's corroborating statements. View "United States v. Trimble" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court concluded that the First Step Act does not mandate that district courts analyze the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors for a permissive reduction in sentence. Nor does it require the district court to reduce a sentence based on post-sentencing rehabilitation. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion sentencing defendant and, contrary to defendant's contention, did not place undue weight on the Guidelines range. Finally, the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court failed to provide a reasoned decision capable of meaningful appellate review where the district court first explained why defendant could receive a reduction and then explained why it would not exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence. View "United States v. Stallings" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in unlawful possession of ammunition. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated battery of a peace officer in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-3.05(d)(4) and two separate felony convictions for causing willful injury in violation of Iowa Code 708.4(2) qualified as violent felonies for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The court concluded that the district court did not err in relying on the proffered Shepard documents to conclude that defendant's Illinois conviction for aggravated battery of a peace officer was based on the "causes bodily harm" alternative and was therefore a violent felony conviction under the ACCA's force clause. The court also concluded that both of defendant's willful injury convictions were Class D felony violations of section 708.4(2), which requires that a person actually "causes bodily injury to another." Therefore, defendant was convicted of offenses requiring violent, physical force as an element. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, and possessing controlled substances with intent to manufacture and distribute at least 280 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that there was no error in applying the USSG 4B1.1 career offender enhancement because defendant's prior Iowa conviction for attempted murder qualified as a crime of violence and his Iowa drug conviction constituted a qualifying controlled substance offense. The court also concluded that defendant's 240-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court had wide latitude to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order of restitution where defendant sexually and financially exploited a high school student who he helped enter the United States on a fraudulent visa. The court concluded that defendant waived his first two arguments claiming that he did not commit an offense against property and that A.S.M. is not a victim, because these arguments are the opposite of what defendant argued before the district court.Although defendant did not waive the issue of whether his specific conduct caused A.S.M.'s losses, defendant's claim failed on the merits. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err by finding that A.S.M.'s losses for future wage loss and medical expenses stemming from the sexual abuse, as well as lost wages, were caused by defendant's specific conduct. Therefore, there was no error in awarding restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. View "United States v. Sukhtipyaroge" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various child pornography charges. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request to photograph and show photos of his penis where the proffered evidence had little probative value and the evidence prejudiced the government based on undue delay. Alternatively, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the photos as a discovery sanction for late disclosure. Even if the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred, any error was harmless.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request to allow his former cellmate to testify about his penis based on lack of probative value and as a discovery sanction for late disclosure. Furthermore, any error was harmless. View "United States v. Copp" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm offense. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that an officer with forty years experience must be allowed to draw on this experience and training to make inferences from and deductions about whether there was reasonable suspicion that one or both of these suspects may be armed and dangerous. In this case, police suspected that defendant's companion was a suspect in the theft of two firearms stolen three days earlier; a Terry stop of both men was reasonable; and the officer had a reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat down search of defendant based on information related to the companion. Furthermore, the officer asked the men if they were armed and defendant stated that the he was. Therefore, the officer retrieved the firearm from defendant's pocket. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 156-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the prosecution's argument that there was no evidence to support defendant's theory was a fair response and did not shift the burden of proof. Furthermore, the court’s instruction on the burden of proof, and the prosecution's own reminder to the jury that the burden of proof rested with the government, avoided any potential prejudice. The court rejected defendant's contention that the prosecutor attacked defense counsel by arguing that he was trying to distract the jury. Rather, the prosecution is entitled to comment on its interpretation of the evidence and the government did not exceed its considerable latitude in rebuttal.The court also concluded that there was no error in admitting text messages that were protected by the marital communications privilege where defendant failed to produce evidence showing that she and R.B. were married under the law of any State. Defendant also waived any marital privilege when she consented to the search of her phone. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's request for a two-level decrease in offense level under USSG 2D1.1(b)(18) where she failed to show that she had truthfully provided the government all information and evidence she had concerning the offense. View "United States v. Lagunas Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit concluded that defendant's unconditional guilty plea waived the lawful combatant immunity defense and affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and for providing material support to terrorists. In this case, defendant unconditionally pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists (Count 1), and providing material support to terrorists (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956(a) and 2339A. The district court accepted defendant's plea and subsequently sentenced defendant to 66 months' imprisonment.The court explained that defendant's plea is the equivalent of admitting all material facts alleged in the charge. The court concluded that defendant's assertion that the individual he assisted was involved with the Free Syrian Army and was therefore entitled to lawful combatant immunity directly contradicts the terms of the indictment. Therefore, defendant's unconditional guilty plea failed to preserve his lawful combatant immunity claim for appeal. View "United States v. Harcevic" on Justia Law