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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence in a case where he was convicted of reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). The court concluded that the cooperation between the police officers and Border Patrol to detain defendant was within the authority conferred by Congress pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(10); the Border Patrol reasonably questioned defendant about his legal presence in the United States; and Border Patrol had authority to take defendant into custody because there was probable cause that he was illegally present in the United States and likely to escape before a warrant issued. The court rejected defendant's Brady challenge, concluding that defendant failed to explain how disclosure of text messages from a confidential informant to a police officer about a potential burglary are either favorable to him or material to his charged offense that requires showing he was a previously deported alien who was knowingly and voluntarily in the United States. Finally, there is no evidence of intentional deletion of the text messages. View "United States v. Puebla-Zamora" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered during a vehicle search and statements made to a task force agent. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant had not maintained control or possession of the vehicle while awaiting the tow truck's arrival. In this case, there is no dispute that defendant was under arrest and in the back of the patrol vehicle during the search, that no one else was present to take possession of the vehicle, and that the deputy made the decision to tow the vehicle. Furthermore, defendant's request that the deputy retrieve his cash and phone from the vehicle further indicates that defendant did not expect to retain custody over the vehicle and its contents during the towing process. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the need to conduct an inventory of the vehicle's contents did not constitute a pretext for an investigatory search. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs from a traffic stop and canine drug sniff. The court considered the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop so that his canine could conduct a drug sniff. In this case, the incongruity between defendant's statements suggested that defendant might be lying about his travel plans, defendant gave odd answers about his travel plans, defendant appeared very nervous even though the officer had informed him he would only be receiving a warning, and the officer testified that the rental vehicle had a lived-in look, suggesting that defendant was attempting to travel without making many stops. Furthermore, the officer had probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle. View "United States v. Pacheco" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats and violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951, with the exception of the district court's order taxing costs for grand jury witnesses. Defendant was an internet entrepreneur and social-media influencer, and his convictions stemmed from his efforts to force the victim to transfer a domain name.The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Government's reasons for striking the only Black prospective juror were race-neutral and not pretextual; there was overwhelming evidence that defendant committed the crime of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats and violence, and the testimony regarding a collateral issue did not affect defendant's substantial rights and did not have more than a slight influence on the verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing costs for a witness who attended but did not testify at trial; the district court did not err in ordering defendant to reimburse the government $22,000 in attorney fees; the district court did not procedurally err in imposing offense-level increases under USSG 2B3.2(b)(3)(A)(i), (4)(B), and (1) when calculating his total offense level; and the district court did not err when it imposed a two-level increase under USSG 2B3.2(b)(1). However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by assessing costs for witnesses who testified before the grand jury because those costs are not taxable against defendant. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction under 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws. Defendant was the owner and CEO of Winntech Digital Systems, and his conviction stemmed from his failure to pay employment taxes.The court concluded that the indictment was sufficient under Marinello v. United States, 584 U.S. ___,138 S.Ct. 1101 (2018), in charging defendant with corruptly endeavored to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) (Count Two). The court explained that Marinello clarifies what must be proven to sustain a conviction under section 7212(a) but does not require that nexus and knowledge be charged in the indictment. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court constructively amended Count Two, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss or for disqualification of the prosecution team on the basis of an alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege. View "United States v. Prelogar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 157 month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court affirmed the denial of safety-valve relief to defendant because the record amply supports the district court's finding that defendant failed to provide complete and truthful information. The court also concluded that defendant's 157-month sentence—a 53-month downward variance from the Guidelines range—is substantively reasonable. In this case, the sentence reflects full compliance with the applicable sentencing statutes and Guidelines provisions, taking into account the specific characteristics of this defendant, the circumstances, and nature of the offense. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Rios" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and unlawfully possessing firearms. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err by improperly vouching for witness credibility. Rather, the district court's explanation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 clarified any confusion defense counsel may have created.The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the drug quantity attributable to defendant at sentencing. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the standard condition of supervised release which requires a supervised person, when directed by the probation officer, to notify a person that defendant may present a risk to that person. The court explained that this standard condition is neither unconstitutionally vague nor an impermissible delegation of power. View "United States v. Janis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegally possessing drugs and a firearm. The court agreed with the district court that the protective-sweep exception justified the initial search. In this case, when the victim opened the door of the hotel room, the room was dark, the officers saw movement, and they could not tell how many people were there. Combined with defendant's extensive history, these articulable facts gave officers a reasonable belief that there might be others in the room who posed a danger to them. Furthermore, the search did not exceed the scope of the lawful protective sweep when officers checked under the mattress for hidden fugitives.The court also agreed with the district court that consent justified the later reentry into the room to retrieve the gun. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm where the government presented sufficient evidence of constructive possession. View "United States v. Whitehead" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that his appellate counsel abandoned him by failing to communicate and provide requested documents. The district court denied his motion but issued a certificate of appealability on defendant's right to counsel for a petition for rehearing under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.The Eighth Circuit concluded that there is no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary appeals, and because petitioner has no constitutional right to rehearing counsel, he cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel. The court rejected petitioner's contention that the Criminal Justice Act plan or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(a) grant the right to effective assistance of counsel for petitions for rehearing. Therefore, the district court properly denied petitioner's section 2255 motion. View "Ahumada v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for charges stemming from his involvement in an armed robbery of a store. The court concluded that the district court committed prejudicial error in denying his motion to dismiss a 18 U.S.C. 924(c) firearm charge the government had dropped in the second superseding indictment, a motion that was pending when defendant pleaded guilty to that charge in the fourth superseding indictment. The court explained that, proceeding by a superseding indictment that eliminates charges, rather than by requesting leave of court for Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) dismissal of those charges, in not, without more, prosecutorial misconduct.The court also concluded that defendant's allegation that the government circumvented Rule 48(a) to induce his plea to Hobbs Act robbery is unsupported by the record. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice because he chose to plead guilty to Hobbs Act robbery knowing the government might reinstate the firearm charges omitted from the second superseding indictment. View "United States v. Rupp" on Justia Law