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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for coercion and enticement of a minor. Applying de novo review, the court agreed with the district court that defendant's enticement of a minor was not induced by the government. Even if defendant could establish enticement, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that he had a predisposition to entice the minor. View "United States v. Tobar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress controlled substances found at the time of his arrest as fruits of an unlawful seizure and the district court's determination that defendant is a career offender. The court agreed with the district court that the officer's polite request for defendant to stay with him was not a command and defendant's compliance did not convert the request into a command. Even if the officer's request is construed as a command that defendant remain in the parked vehicle, the court agreed with the district court that officer safety concerns made this brief seizure objectively reasonable under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968).The court also held that circuit precedent foreclosed defendant's contention that the district court did not err in concluding defendant was a career offender based on his three Illinois controlled substance offenses and his Iowa conviction for domestic assault with strangulation. The court need not consider the government's alternative argument that any error was harmless. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

Defendant was committed to the custody of the Attorney General based on a mental disease or defect and a substantial risk of dangerousness. Subsequently, defendant was conditionally released to the community. After the district court revoked his conditional release for violation of several conditions, he appealed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that 18 U.S.C. 4246(f) does not direct, or even expressly authorize the district court to order a mental health exam in a proceeding to consider revocation of conditional discharge. The court explained that denial of the exam did not deprive defendant of his Fifth Amendment due process rights where he was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the revocation of his conditional release, and he did not avail himself of statutory opportunities to show that he was eligible for discharge despite violating conditions of release. View "United States v. Spann" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay evidence by admitting certain statements. The court explained that the government did not introduce the statements to prove the truth of the matters asserted, and thus the statements were not hearsay and were properly admitted into evidence. Although the court found defendant's statements at the hospital should not have been admitted, the error was harmless. The court concluded that any improperly admitted hearsay testimony did not influence or had a slight influence on the verdict.The court also held that the district court did not err in rejecting the proposed self-defense jury instruction, and in giving the 8th Circuit Model Jury instruction on self-defense. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon. View "United States v. Earth" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for seven drug-trafficking crimes. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine within the time period alleged in the indictment. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by permitting the jury to view the transcript before defense counsel had an opportunity to review the transcript and take a position as to its accuracy, because defendant's claim was not supported by the facts. In this case, defendant waived any objection that he may have had to the presentation of the transcript to the jury—including any objection on the ground that the transcript was inaccurate. Finally, the lack of a curative instruction regarding the transcript did not constitute error, let alone error that was plain. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Defendants Magallon and Garcia Ortiz with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine and at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. Garcia Ortiz was also indicted with possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine. Garcia Ortiz conditionally pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge, and Magallon was convicted by a jury of the conspiracy charge.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Garcia Ortiz's motion to suppress evidence where officers had an objectively reasonable suspicion that the GMC Sierra's occupants were involved in criminal activity, namely drug distribution; reasonable suspicion clearly existed to justify the stop and remained present as further information unfolded during the stop; and the officers did not exceed the mission of the stop. Furthermore, the district court did not err in finding that Garcia Ortiz consented to the search of the Lexus. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Garcia Ortiz's motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements. In this case, defendant voluntarily waived his rights against self-incrimination and to counsel. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Magallon's request for a willful blindness instruction, and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant his conspiracy conviction. View "United States v. Magallon" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where the evidence showed he constructively possessed the Glock pistol in the Air Jordan bag and was in joint constructive possession of three other handguns. The court also held that there was no plain Rehaif error where defendant cannot show that the district court's failure to include a Rehaif instruction affected his substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Finally, the district court did not err by imposing a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(1) for possessing three to seven firearms. View "United States v. Brooks-Davis" on Justia Law

Under a prisoner transfer arrangement, petitioner is serving a thirty-year sentence imposed in Arkansas state court in 1996. After petitioner was sentenced in Arkansas, the federal government prosecuted him for offenses committed before his incarceration, and a federal court in New Mexico sentenced him in September 1997 to a term of 595 months' imprisonment. The federal government briefly assigned petitioner to a federal prison, but then concluded that he should have been returned to Arkansas and transferred him back there in October 1997.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on petitioner's claim that time served since September 1997 on his Arkansas sentence should also be credited against his federal sentence. The court concluded that petitioner is not entitled to credit against his federal sentence where the district court did not clearly err in finding that Arkansas transferred custody to the United States pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum; the federal government's mistaken retention of custody does not constitute an assumption of primary jurisdiction where the State never intended to relinquish jurisdiction and the error was quickly rectified; and a detainer does not alter the custody status of a prisoner. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. View "Wiseman v. Wachendorf" on Justia Law

Harris pleaded guilty to first-degree assault. In 2012, the Circuit Court of Scott County, Missouri imposed a 15-year sentence, ordering that it run concurrently with Harris’s recently-imposed 25-year federal sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to interference with commerce by threat or violence, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition. His federal sentence, which was silent on whether it was to be served consecutively or concurrently, was later reduced to 183 months, in light of the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision.Harris is in state custody, receiving credit only against his state sentence. He will begin serving his federal sentence after he completes his state sentence and is transferred to the Bureau of Prisons. Despite the state court’s order, Harris will serve consecutive, not concurrent, sentences.Harris sought habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Harris alleged sufficient facts to apprise the court and the state of a distinct basis for his claim—that Plea Counsel advised that his 25-year federal sentence would “swallow” up any state sentence he would receive for pleading guilty to assault. On remand, the district court must determine whether Harris procedurally defaulted that claim. View "Harris v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Herrera's husband fraudulently used the identity of a lawful permanent U.S. resident (LPR) to become a citizen. Herrera obtained LPR status as the wife of a citizen and became a citizen. Herrera's four children are U.S. citizens. In 2011, Herrera was convicted of second-degree theft. The government discovered Herrera’s false statement. She pleaded guilty to naturalization fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1425(a). The district court revoked her citizenship and restored her to LPR status, 8 U.S.C. 1451(e).If an alien commits fraud or misrepresents a material fact to gain a benefit under the immigration laws, she may be deported, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); 1227(a)(1)(A). Herrera sought a waiver available to aliens who committed immigration fraud but are the parent of a citizen and separately sought cancellation of removal as an LPR. DHS added a charge of removability for convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude based on Herrera's theft conviction, then withdrew the charge of removability for immigration fraud. The BIA affirmed that she was ineligible for a fraud waiver because she was no longer charged under the fraud provision and was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she had obtained her LPR status by fraud.The Eighth Circuit denied relief, rejecting Herrera’s argument that DHS could not withdraw the fraud charge because it had already been sustained by the IJ. The government is permitted to adjust the charges against an alien during the immigration court case. View "Gonzalez v. Rosen" on Justia Law