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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The court followed the precedent established in United States v. Hill, 820 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2016), and employed the circumstance-specific approach to the application of 34 U.S.C. 20911(7)(I). The court concluded that the district court used reliable evidence in finding the requisite facts by putting the government's proof through the rigors of the admissibility standards of the rules of evidence in a contested hearing. The court also concluded that section 20911(7)(I) is not void for vagueness as applied to defendant. View "United States v. Burgee" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing a four-level increase under USSG 3B1.1 for a leadership or organizer role in the offense and a two-level increase under USSG 2D1.1(b)(16)E) for committing the drug offenses as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a downward departure and by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. In this case, the district court thoroughly discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for four counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and one count of tax fraud. The court rejected defendant's numerous claims of Napue violations, concluding that the statements at issue were corrected and the allegedly false testimony was stricken from the record. In regard to the remaining Napue claims, the court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that the violations are harmless. The court also rejected defendant's Brady claim, concluding that the district court correctly determined that the government's failure to inform defendant of the reverse proffer did not constitute a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence, even if favorable to defendant, was not material.The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that the district court committed clear error by concluding that the government did not violate the Jencks Act by failing to disclose an agent's report because the report included no statements made by government witnesses that related to the subject matter of their testimony. The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's fraud convictions, and defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on the cumulative impact of alleged trial errors. Finally, the court concluded that defendant failed to show the existence of any legal error or clear factual error in the district court's fraud-loss calculation, and imposing an order of restitution equal to the amount of the loss was not erroneous. View "United States v. Ruzicka" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for five counts of drug-trafficking, but reversed his 25 month sentence, remanding for resentencing. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was not violated and rejected his claims of error related to the admission of map exhibits, submission of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury, the prosecutor's leading questions to a government witness, and the admission of firearm evidence. The court also held that the government's notice complied with 21 U.S.C. 851. However, because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's 2006 Illinois conviction qualified as a "serious drug felony," the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence does not apply in his case. Therefore, defendant is entitled to resentencing. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and life sentence for five counts of aggravated sexual abuse and three counts of sexual abuse of a minor. While the court doubted that a search warrant that neither identifies the items to be seized nor incorporates an affidavit that might arguably cure the deficiencies meets the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, the court need not reach that question because any error in admitting the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.The court held that there was no error in admitting testimony from victims of defendant's sexual abuse because the evidence was substantially probative, rebutted defendant's defense, and was not unduly prejudicial. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a missing abuse victim's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1). View "United States v. Weber" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, he was sentenced to 168 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,541,527.37.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the indictment sufficiently described a fraudulent scheme to violate the federal statutes regarding mail and wire fraud. In this case, the indictment lays out a sufficient basis for the government's charge that defendant committed fraud, and it informs the court and the parties involved of the facts underlying that charge. The court also held that the government met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the $1,541,527.37 loss total was attributable solely to settlement payments from the fraud scheme. Therefore, the district court did not err in adopting that figure as fairly representative of the actual loss caused by the scheme. View "United States v. Hansmeier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In this case, the jury permissibly found the required nexus without the guidance of expert testimony and rejected the claim that defendant's express reference to "protection" related solely to protecting chickens against wildlife. View "United States v. Urbina-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts related to the receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for leave to file post-deadline pretrial motions in light of his knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to do so.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a limited number of child pornography images from the more than one thousand images seized from defendant's devices. The court noted that, although it might well have been a better practice to examine the images in question, the district court did not abuse its discretion by making its Federal Rule of Evidence 403 decision without having done so. In this case, the images were neither unfairly prejudicial nor needlessly cumulative. View "United States v. Blanks" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for robbing an individual of personal property belonging to the United States. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for instructions on duress or coercion and/or voluntariness as he failed to meet his burden of proving the existence of duress/coercion by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, defendant's evidence amounts to a generalized and speculative fear of violence, and is insufficient to demonstrate the requisite showing of a present, imminent, and impending threat.Even if defendant had established a fear that was immediate and well-founded, the court explained that defendant's duress defense would still fail because he cannot show he had no reasonable, legal alternative to engaging in the robbery. Finally, upon careful review of the record, the court found that the court did not prohibit defendant from arguing his theory of defense. View "United States v. Sharron" on Justia Law

Defendants William, Junior, Carter, and Senior appealed their convictions on various drug trafficking charges. In regard to Defendant William's challenges, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err by denying his motion to suppress the wiretap evidence; abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination, err in denying his request for a multiple conspiracies jury instruction, and err in applying witness intimidation and aggravated role enhancements. In regard to Defendant Junior's challenges, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's suppression of the wiretap evidence; in granting the government's motion to sever; in determining that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; and in limiting cross-examination.In regard to Defendant Carter's challenges, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a buyer-seller instruction; did not err in determining that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; and did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Finally, in regard to Defendant Senior's challenges, the court concluded that the district court properly denied his multiple-conspiracy and buyer-seller instructions, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy and distribution of crack and cocaine. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law