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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine and at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and six counts of distribution of a controlled substance. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853, the indictment also sought forfeiture of $13,400 in United States currency, which was seized from a residence in Davenport, Iowa.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and concluded that the district court's factual findings are supported by the record and it did not err in concluding that the money was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 853(a)(2). In this case, the district court did not err in determining that the cash discovered inside the lockbox found in the same bedroom as the methamphetamine was subject to forfeiture. View "United States v. Sheley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings in an action where defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted sex trafficking of children, one count of attempted enticement of minors, and one count of travel across state lines for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting four of defendant's internet searches for prurient pictures and videos of minor girls because it was relevant to his intent and purpose when he traveled across state lines to meet the girls. Furthermore, the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. View "United States v. Nordwall" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine; possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and being a felon in possession of a firearm.The court concluded that where, as here, the defendant withdraws his objection to the career offender designation at sentencing, the argument is waived. The court also concluded that defendant's prior conviction for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (meth) under Iowa Code 124.401(1)(c)(6) was a serious drug offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and thus defendant was properly sentenced as an armed career criminal. Furthermore, the district court did not err in imposing a cross-reference to USSG 2A2.1 for attempted first-degree murder. Finally, defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Comly" on Justia Law

Defendants Phillips and Cathey were convicted of two counts of conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and one count of distribution resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The jury also found Phillips guilty of one additional count of distribution resulting in serious injury and Cathey guilty of two additional counts of distribution resulting in serious injury or death.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the heroin Phillips gave to two individuals was a but-for cause of their injury; the evidence was sufficient to support Cathey's convictions for conspiracy and distribution of drugs resulting in serious injury or death; the district court did not err when it admitted hearsay statements of a coconspirator; the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to take remedial steps to correct any possible violation of the sequestration order; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting NCIC records to establish Cathey's prior convictions for sentencing purposes. View "United States v. Cathey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the Government's motion to retry him on the elements triggering his life sentences that were part of two of the counts on which he was previously convicted. Defendant argued that retrial would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause.As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that defendant's double jeopardy claim is colorable and that the court has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. On the merits, the court concluded that defendant's retrial on the resulting-in-death elements of Count One and Seven would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court explained that defendant received habeas relief because of Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 208, 217-19 (2014), and thus the insufficiency in proof was caused by the subsequent change in the law, not the Government's failure to muster evidence to satisfy the former standard. Even assuming defendant is correct that the Government would, for one reason or another, be unable to prove on retrial the resulting-in-death elements under Burrage, the court rejected his conclusion that this brings his case within the "equivalent of an acquittal" principle in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 15 (1978). View "United States v. Harrington" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of medicine vials, concluding that the plain view exception does not apply where the incriminating character of the vials was not immediately apparent. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record suggesting that the officer had specialized expertise or training with regard to narcotics such that his specific knowledge could be a basis for finding probable cause.In this case, officers arrived at the residence after a neighbor's report of a woman screaming and crying, they entered the home without consent to check on the woman, found her extremely intoxicated but unharmed, and discovered the small glass vials. The court explained that, when one of the officers picked up the vials, held them higher to get a better view, and turned them to read the labels, he had no idea of the contents. At that moment, the vials had been searched and seized, before he had probable cause to believe they were an illegally possessed controlled substance. View "United States v. Arredondo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) and 922(a)(6), concluding that the indictment was sufficient to give defendant notice where he could have easily read the definition on the order form and known that S.O. was an intimate partner and that he was restricted from firearm and ammunition possession. The court explained that section 922(g)(8) simply does not require that the court-order form identify the protected party as an intimate partner. Rather, section 922(g)(8) requires only that the order protect an intimate party in fact. The court rejected defendant's contention that he was denied due process. The court also concluded that the district court's error under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), was harmless where a rational fact finder could infer that defendant had knowledge of his status under section 922(g)(8) beyond a reasonable doubt because he was aware of the facts that met the statutory requirements for the court order.However, the court remanded for resentencing. The court concluded that, because USSG 2K2.1(b)(2) does not contemplate attempted firearm purchases, the district court erred by including defendant's attempted purchase in its analysis. Because there is a reasonable probability that the sporting-use reduction would have applied to defendant's offense-level calculation, he has shown plain error. View "United States v. Sholley-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's 51-month sentence imposed after the district court determined that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release. While defendant was awaiting a hearing on his alleged violations of his supervised release, law enforcement discovered that he was in possession of 4.86 grams of cocaine. In this case, defendant stipulated that he violated his conditions of release by possessing cocaine, but he denied that he intended to distribute a controlled substance. Furthermore, the district court did not find that defendant had committed a controlled substance offense as that term is defined in the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, the district court erred by concluding that defendant had committed three grade A violations and the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Trent" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where the initial duration of the traffic stop was justified by defendant's inability to produce the basic identifying information the officer requested and the time it took for her to address this issue. Furthermore, by the time the officer handcuffed defendant, she had moved beyond addressing defendant's traffic offense and begun investigating ordinary criminal wrongdoing where defendant was on federal probation for a firearm offense, and she had seen a loaded gun magazine in plain view in the pocket of the driver's side door. Therefore, the officer's extension of the stop was properly supported by reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity was afoot and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The court also concluded that, in light of this circuit's silence on whether Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968), permits the use of a defendant's suppression hearing testimony for impeachment purposes, this court cannot say that the district court's decision to allow the government to impeach defendant at trial with his prior testimony at the suppression hearing was not plain error. View "United States v. Navarette" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment denying safety-valve relief following defendant's guilty plea to distributing five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that defendant, while under an obligation to truthfully disclose his involvement in drug trafficking, chose to concoct a story to advance his own agenda and mislead the government about one of his drug suppliers. Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that defendant was ineligible for safety-valve relief. View "United States v. McVay" on Justia Law