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

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

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