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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2251 and to committing a felony against a minor while being a registered sex offender under 18 U.S.C. 2260A. The court concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence of 300 months' imprisonment for the section 2251 conviction, which is a 60-month downward variance from the Guidelines range. As required, the district court added 120 months' imprisonment to the sentence based on defendant's section 2260A conviction, running consecutively. In this case, the district court did not give improper weight to the facts of the case, and the district court considered the mitigating factors, as well as potential sentencing disparities. The court explained that the district court has substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give each 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factor and the district court did not exceeds its substantial latitude here. The court also concluded that, although the district court plainly erred by imposing a life term of supervised release that exceeds three years, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. View "United States v. Gifford" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to begin involuntary treatment of defendant under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Defendant suffers from amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder, with onset during intoxication, and was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and defendant declined medication.The court found that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Treatment Plan will significantly further the important state interests. In this case, the government met its burden in showing that the medication was substantially likely to render defendant competent to stand trial and it was substantially unlikely to have side effects that would interfere significantly with defendant's ability to assist counsel in conducting a trial defense. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in finding that involuntary medication is medically appropriate for defendant. View "United States v. Coy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 84-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. In this case, after a traffic stop of a vehicle defendant was driving, police found a handgun and PCP inside the vehicle.The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the weapon in connection with another felony offense - possession of a controlled substance. Furthermore, there is no obvious error, and no reasonable likelihood that a more detailed explanation for the district court's sentencing decision would have resulted in a shorter term of imprisonment. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the mitigating factors and the district court had substantial latitude in weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for interstate stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A(1). The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering writings found in defendant's car in evaluating the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public. In this case, the writings were evidence of defendant's intent to commit the charged offense and tended to show that he presented a danger to the victim and the community, and there was no First Amendment violation.The court also concluded that the prosecution did not engage in misconduct when it referred to defendant by masculine pronouns at sentencing after he asked to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns. The court explained that defendant cites no authority for the proposition that litigants and courts must refer to defendants by their preferred pronouns, and the only cited authority is to the contrary. Furthermore, there is no showing that the use of pronouns affected the outcome of the proceeding. In regard to defendant's contention that the government disregarded his diagnosis of gender dysphoria, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. The record is clear that the district court sentenced defendant based on his conduct, not due to his gender or gender identity. The court further concluded that the government did not breach defendant's plea agreement by seeking restitution under both the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and the Violence Against Women Act; the interstate stalking statute is not an unconstitutional overreach of the federal legislature; the court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance claim; and the judge did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for recusal. View "United States v. Thomason" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court adopted the presentence investigation report finding that defendant was a career offender.The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that defendant's prior conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 609.05 qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court rejected defendant's arguments to the contrary, concluding that State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn. 1981), does not support defendant's contention that there is something "special" about Minnesota's definition of aiding and abetting. Similarly, the other Minnesota cases to which defendant cites fail to show that there is something "special" about the Minnesota courts' application of section 609.05. View "United States v. Yackel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release. The court concluded that there is no more support in the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) for adopting evidentiary hearing requirements for compassionate release motions than there is for mandatory hearings of any kind. The court explained that the statutory text all but refutes defendant's argument and the court declined to create such a requirement itself for an unambiguous statute under its supervisory powers. The court also concluded that the district court did not make an analytical error. In this case, contrary to defendant's argument, the district court considered whether his reasons for a reduction were "extraordinary and compelling" before ultimately denying relief. View "United States v. Vangh" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's restitution award and special condition of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the mandatory minimum restitution award of $3,000 under amended 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(2)(B). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release which prohibited defendant from viewing, possessing, producing or using sexually oriented, sexually stimulating, or pornographic materials because the condition was not void for vagueness or unconstitutionally overbroad. View "United States v. Clemens" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration of his resentence under Amendment 782. In this case, the district court had granted defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 782 and reduced his term of imprisonment from 235 months to 199 months. Defendant sought a further reduction to 188 months and an evidentiary hearing to address the alleged conduct violations.The court concluded that, to the extent defendant's rights were implicated by the district court's decision to reduce his sentence, the district court provided him with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the district court provided an adequate explanation for its reduced sentence, specifically referencing defendant's alleged conduct violations while in custody and denying the motion to reconsider. In this case, the district court adopted the government's reasons why a 199-month sentence was warranted and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Beltran-Estrada" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's decision to deport and remove petitioner to Somalia and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's second-degree felony assault conviction is a particularly serious crime that bars statutory withholding of removal. The court also concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in finding that the particularly serious crime bar foreclosed petitioner's relief for withholding of removal under the CAT. Finally, the court need not address the likelihood that petitioner will be tortured because substantial evidence supports the IJ and the BIA's finding that his torture would not be directed by or acquiesced to by the Somali government. View "Jama v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. In denying both defendant's pro se motion for a sentence reduction and his counseled motion for reconsideration, the district court did not specifically address whether he is eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that it is unable to conduct meaningful appellate review of the district court's order. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law