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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant Hanel and Clark's motions to suppress all evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The court concluded that, at the time the officers initiated the traffic stop, they had grounds for reasonable suspicion that the vehicle lacked proper registration in violation of Nebraska law. In this case, although the officers cited the lane change as their reason for stopping the vehicle, they already had an objective basis to stop it when the first two NCIC searches failed to indicate proper registration.The court noted that its holding should not be interpreted as justifying all warrantless vehicle stops based on ambiguous results from data searches. Rather, the court emphasized that its holding depends on the express factual findings that: (1) the NCIC database was not inherently unreliable; (2) the officers were competent in the use of their laptop; and (3) the officers were competent in accessing the NCIC database. View "United States v. Hanel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress the guns and ammunition where officers had probable cause to believe defendant was engaged in criminal activity and their subsequent arrest and search of defendant's vehicle did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss because defendant's police perjury claims fail under either an abuse of discretion or a de novo standard. The court weighed the Barker factors to determine whether defendant's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial had been violated and concluded that the factors weigh in favor of the government. In this case, defendant caused most of the delay, nearly half of which was due to his competency proceedings. Furthermore, defendant cannot rely on presumptive prejudice alone and has failed to show actual or specific prejudice. Finally, after excluding all times permitted by the Speedy Trial Act, the court concluded that seventy days had not run at the time defendant pleaded guilty. View "United States v. Flores-Lagonas" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempted enticement of a minor and travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and 2423(b). The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony from defendant's proposed expert that defendant was not attracted to minors and regarding the role of fantasy in chat rooms; the court need not decide whether the testimony violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) because the evidence supporting defendant's convictions is overwhelming; and any error in excluding the testimony was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the fantasy chat room testimony because defendant never used a chat room. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Willins" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the government's interception of his wire and electronic communications. The court concluded that, even if the court orders authorizing the interceptions were insufficient, suppression of evidence is not warranted, because investigators reasonably relied in good faith on the court orders. The court explained that, given the state of the law in 2014, and even today in light of United States v. Brunson, 968 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2020), it was objectively reasonable for investigators to rely on the court orders at issue to intercept defendant's communications. View "United States v. Friend" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. The court concluded that the trooper's determination that the vehicle was following too closely in violation of the relevant statute was objectively reasonable. In the alternative, the district court did not clearly err in finding that nothing prevented the driver from slowing down sooner and maintaining a reasonable and prudent distance behind the pickup.The court also concluded that the stop was not improperly prolonged once the trooper indicated he did not intend to issue a ticket, because the trooper was clearly conducting routine traffic violation-related tasks. In this case, the trooper asked the two men questions related to their destination, route, and purpose and questions were posed while awaiting dispatch's response to his criminal histories check. Furthermore, the driver of the car consented to a search of the rental vehicle, and defendant, a passenger, posed no objection when informed of the impending search and stood by quietly as it took place. View "United States v. Cox" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly possessing with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of a mixture or substance containing crack cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. In this case, the district court explained that defendant's offense conduct was very serious where his conviction involved possessing 116 grams of cocaine base while in a car with an eleven-year-old child. Furthermore, the district court relied on defendant's extensive criminal history, and noted that while imprisoned, defendant twice fought with other inmates. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of involuntary manslaughter stemming from a drunk-driving accident that resulted in the death of one of his passengers. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and thus the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal.The court also concluded that defendant's 60 month sentence was procedurally reasonable where the sentencing transcript makes clear that the district court considered each of defendant's arguments, including that for leniency, but decided to depart upwards based on his underrepresented criminal history of multiple tribal convictions. Furthermore, defendant's contention that the district court failed to adequately explain the rationale for his sentence is simply without merit. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of commercial sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) and conspiring to commit that offense in violation of section1594(c). In this case, defendant paid $60 dollars to a codefendant to have sex with a fifteen-year-old.The court agreed with the district court that section 1591(c) is not unconstitutionally vague "because 'reasonable opportunity to observe' would 'provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,' is subject to common understanding, and is typical of standards that juries are asked to consider. In this case, considering that defendant had multiple encounters with the minor, his comments to the child and law enforcement about her age, and the nude photos of the minor that he later deleted because they could be child pornography, the court explained that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor, he engaged in conduct that is clearly proscribed, and he cannot complain of the vagueness of the law. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the interstate commerce element of these sex trafficking offenses, and the evidence was sufficient to prove that his conduct affected interstate commerce, and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Koech" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The district court concluded that defendant was subject to an enhanced sentence for the firearm conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had sustained at least three prior convictions for a "serious drug offense." The prior convictions at issue arose from charges that defendant sold drugs in Missouri on three occasions in 1996.The court concluded that defendant's collateral attack on the Missouri convictions was foreclosed by Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 487 (1994), which held that a defendant has no right to collaterally attack prior convictions in the course of his federal sentencing proceeding. The court also concluded that, even assuming for the sake of analysis that defendant's offenses of conviction required only a mental state of recklessness, the district court did not plainly err by counting them as serious drug offenses under the ACCA. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error by ruling that defendant's convictions in Missouri were qualifying predicate offenses. View "United States v. Lyman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and thus the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(O). Therefore, petitioner is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Lopez-Chavez v. Garland" on Justia Law