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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1 based on his pre-plea conduct while incarcerated at the detention center. In this case, defendant and other inmates were involved in an assault of another inmate. The court explained that, under its precedent, it was entitled to rely on such criminal conduct in denying acceptance of responsibility based on a defendant's pre-plea conduct. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant Spencer and Farah's convictions and sentences for Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The court agreed with the Government that defendants forfeited their objection to the Hobbs Act instruction. In this case, the only ground for objecting to the original instruction that defendants asserted with specificity before the district court was that the instruction failed to make clear that Hobbs Act robbery requires a mens rea of knowledge with respect to the taking of the victim’s property. Therefore, the court concluded that defendants forfeited the right to object to the instruction on other grounds, including the ground that the instruction failed to make clear that Hobbs Act robbery requires an effect on interstate commerce. Even if defendants' proposed instruction had been clearer than the district court's, the mere tender of an alternative instruction that avoids an alleged error in the district court's instruction does not preserve the error for appeal unless the party specifies the alleged error as a basis for objecting to the district court's instruction. However, it was not until this appeal that defendants argued that the district court's instruction failed to make clear that Hobbs Act robbery requires an effect on interstate commerce. Accordingly, defendants forfeited their objection even assuming their proposed instruction made clear that Hobbs Act robbery requires an effect on interstate commerce, and defendants' challenge to the jury instructions regarding Hobbs Act robbery fails under plain error review.The court also rejected defendants' claim of prosecutorial misconduct under plain error review. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not procedurally err in calculating the advisory sentencing guidelines, upholding the obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 and the reckless endangerment enhancement during flight under USSG 3C1.2. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 24-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his second supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court adequately explained its reasoning for defendant's sentence, and the district court did not commit a Tapia error, much less plain error, by considering defendant's need for rehabilitation when crafting his sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable based on the upward variance and the district court did not clearly err in weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

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