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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of involuntary manslaughter stemming from a drunk-driving accident that resulted in the death of one of his passengers. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and thus the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal.The court also concluded that defendant's 60 month sentence was procedurally reasonable where the sentencing transcript makes clear that the district court considered each of defendant's arguments, including that for leniency, but decided to depart upwards based on his underrepresented criminal history of multiple tribal convictions. Furthermore, defendant's contention that the district court failed to adequately explain the rationale for his sentence is simply without merit. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of commercial sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) and conspiring to commit that offense in violation of section1594(c). In this case, defendant paid $60 dollars to a codefendant to have sex with a fifteen-year-old.The court agreed with the district court that section 1591(c) is not unconstitutionally vague "because 'reasonable opportunity to observe' would 'provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,' is subject to common understanding, and is typical of standards that juries are asked to consider. In this case, considering that defendant had multiple encounters with the minor, his comments to the child and law enforcement about her age, and the nude photos of the minor that he later deleted because they could be child pornography, the court explained that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor, he engaged in conduct that is clearly proscribed, and he cannot complain of the vagueness of the law. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the interstate commerce element of these sex trafficking offenses, and the evidence was sufficient to prove that his conduct affected interstate commerce, and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Koech" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The district court concluded that defendant was subject to an enhanced sentence for the firearm conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had sustained at least three prior convictions for a "serious drug offense." The prior convictions at issue arose from charges that defendant sold drugs in Missouri on three occasions in 1996.The court concluded that defendant's collateral attack on the Missouri convictions was foreclosed by Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 487 (1994), which held that a defendant has no right to collaterally attack prior convictions in the course of his federal sentencing proceeding. The court also concluded that, even assuming for the sake of analysis that defendant's offenses of conviction required only a mental state of recklessness, the district court did not plainly err by counting them as serious drug offenses under the ACCA. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error by ruling that defendant's convictions in Missouri were qualifying predicate offenses. View "United States v. Lyman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and thus the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(O). Therefore, petitioner is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Lopez-Chavez v. Garland" on Justia Law

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