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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempted enticement of a minor using the internet, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. The court also held that there was more than sufficient evidence that the jury could have relied upon in finding that defendant responded promptly to the opportunity to solicit a minor and was, therefore, not entrapped by the government. View "United States v. Zupnik" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. The district court also imposed a $5,000 special assessment.The Eighth Circuit concluded that defendant did not raise his objection to the indictment in the district court proceedings and had failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely object to the indictment. Even if he could show good cause, the court would review his argument under the same plain error standard with which the court reviewed his challenge to the jury instructions. In this case, defendant failed to show the district court obviously erred by applying the reckless-disregard standard. The court held that it was proper to use the reckless-disregard standard because defendant was convicted for attempting to recruit, entice, obtain, patronize, or solicit a minor for a commercial act. The court also held that the district court did not err by using the label "sex trafficking" when describing the charged crime to the jury in Instruction No. 4. Finally, the $5,000 special assessment was properly imposed where defendant failed to show he had the inability to pay the assessment. View "United States v. Zam Mung" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing an indictment charging defendant with illegal reentry to the United States. The court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that defendant made a sufficient showing to attack the deportation order that underlies the charge in this criminal case. In this case, defendant may not challenge in this criminal case the validity of the immigration court’s underlying deportation order from 1998. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Leal-Monroy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 192 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court varied downward after engaging in a measured and thoughtful discussion of the Guidelines and their applicability to defendant's offense and personal circumstances. The court also concluded that, while a district court may choose to deviate from the Guidelines because of a policy disagreement, it is not required to do so. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Wickman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's drug and firearm conspiracy convictions and his conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court also concluded that, although the district court erred by allowing an officer to impermissibly opine on an ultimate issue when she testified that the 1-9 Block Dipset Gang is a "drug trafficking organization," there was no plain error because defendant could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. View "United States v. Flax" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 300 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder within Indian country. The court need not address whether the district court erred by departing under USSG 5K2.1 and 5K2.6, because the district court said that it would impose the same sentence by varying upward under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Furthermore, defendant did not object to the mistaken statements of fact at issue, and he cannot show a reasonable probability that they affected the outcome of the proceeding. The court also concluded that there is no reasonable probability that the district court would have arrived at a different sentence if the defense had clarified the identities of the minivan occupants and the family relationships during the hearing. The district court also discussed the section 3553(a) factors at some length and its explanation was adequate. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Shoulders" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court concluded that, even if defendant invokes the right to counsel, the law enforcement agent could still continue to make limited and focused inquires attendant to a legitimate police procedure if they are not likely to be perceived as calling for an incriminating response. In this case, the agent's statement fell into this category and he simply presented the search warrant to defendant, telling him what it allowed him to do. The court explained that it was, in other words, a "statement of fact" about a legitimate police procedure.However, the court concluded that the district court's decision -- admitting expert testimony about the typical behaviors of sexual assault victims and refusing to admit testimony about whether the victim had been sexually assaulted before -- improperly prevented defendant from presenting his complete defense and showing that an earlier sexual assault was the source of the victim's trauma. The court remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Zephier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the seizure of defendant was justified under the community caretaker exception where law enforcement received a report that a little girl's mother heard her daughter screaming and crying during a phone call with the girl's father; the mother also reported that the father had a firearm and threatened to kill anyone else who tried to come get the child; and, because defendant left his house before officers could respond, they were justified in effecting a traffic stop on him in order to conduct a welfare check on the girl. The court explained that the escalation of the encounter occurred only because defendant chose to escalate it by his own threatening conduct in response to the welfare check, and the officers' response was reasonable. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable where the district court properly calculated the guidelines range and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Halter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a protective frisk. The court concluded that the officer performed a lawful, protective search based on reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant may have been armed. In this case, the officer's targeted, protective search was sufficiently limited to dispel his concerns that the bulge under defendant's clothing may have been a weapon. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court also concluded that officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify defendant's traffic stop and the stop was not impermissibly extended. In this case, defendant was questioned about his erratic driving and his presence on someone else's farm; defendant offered implausible explanations and manifested excited speech and mannerisms; and the officer was justified in prolonging the stop in order to question defendant further and to call another officer to investigate whether defendant was under the influence of drugs. View "United States v. Marin" on Justia Law