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

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

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred in imposing the destructive-device enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(3)(B). The court also concluded that the error affected defendant's substantial rights because his Guidelines imprisonment range would have been lower without the enhancement and the error seriously affects the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing without the destructive-device enhancement. View "United States v. Zarate" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Assuming, without deciding, that the government knowingly intruded into the attorney-client relationship when officers seized privileged documents from defendant's cell, the district court concluded that defendant fails to demonstrate any particular prejudice or substantial threat of prejudice to his sentencing proceeding. In this case, the district court's offer of additional time to prepare for the sentencing hearing was an adequate shield from prejudice, given the relatively short-term deprivation of materials and absence of any evidence derived from the seized materials being used for sentencing. Therefore, there was no Sixth Amendment violation.The court also concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error when calculating defendant's Guidelines-recommended sentence by relying on his two prior Iowa convictions. The court explained that the convictions are counted independently because they are separated by an intervening arrest. Furthermore, the district court correctly considered defendant's prior convictions as controlled substance offenses for purposes of determining his base offense level. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court denied defendant's request for a downward variance, weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sawatzky" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for carjacking; two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting government exhibits at trial related to a photo on defendant's Facebook, Facebook conversations, and a video of defendant with a firearm while counting a large amount of cash. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the "intent" element of carjacking and the phrase "carried a firearm" in 18 U.S.C. 924(c); the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for carjacking, carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; and the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1) for possession of between 3 and 7 firearms, and in applying the carjacking offense characteristic under USSG 2B3.1(b)(5). View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 96-month sentence after a jury found him guilty of three counts of abusive sexual contact of a child. The court concluded that any evidentiary error in admitting defendant's prior sexual assault accusation against defendant was harmless because it had little to no influence on the verdict. The court also concluded that the district court did not make a mistake by treating the prior abuse as part of "a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct" under USSG 4B1.5(b). Furthermore, the district court could consider it once it found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the prior prohibited conduct occurred, regardless of whether it "resulted in a conviction." Finally, the district court did not rely on a "clearly erroneous fact." View "United States v. Oakie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and motion for a Franks hearing after he was convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine. In regard to the motion to suppress, the court concluded that, even if the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause, the good faith exception applies in this case because the issuing judge could have logically inferred that defendant stored contraband at his residence. Therefore, the officer's reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable. In regard to the motion for a Franks hearing, the court also concluded that defendant has not made a substantial preliminary showing that the statements at issue were false and defendant waived his GPS-related argument. View "United States v. Mayweather" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging petitioner's removability and seeking asylum. Petitioner, a Somali native who is part of a minority Islamic sect called Sufism, fled Somalia to escape the country's civil war. He came to the United States in 2000 and his entire family resides in the United States, including his nine children.The court concluded that petitioner's conviction for possession of khat relates to a federal controlled substance under 8 U.S.C.  1227(a)(2)(B)(i). In this case, khat contains at least one of two substances listed on the federal drug schedules and thus petitioner is removable. In regard to asylum, the court applied de novo review and concluded that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to establish the social distinctiveness of his proposed social group: those suffering from mental health illnesses, specifically post traumatic stress disorder. Furthermore, the Board did not err in concluding that the IJ's factual finding that the Somali government was helpless against al-Shabaab was clearly erroneous. View "Ahmed v. Garland" on Justia Law