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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's restitution award and special condition of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the mandatory minimum restitution award of $3,000 under amended 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(2)(B). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release which prohibited defendant from viewing, possessing, producing or using sexually oriented, sexually stimulating, or pornographic materials because the condition was not void for vagueness or unconstitutionally overbroad. View "United States v. Clemens" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration of his resentence under Amendment 782. In this case, the district court had granted defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 782 and reduced his term of imprisonment from 235 months to 199 months. Defendant sought a further reduction to 188 months and an evidentiary hearing to address the alleged conduct violations.The court concluded that, to the extent defendant's rights were implicated by the district court's decision to reduce his sentence, the district court provided him with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the district court provided an adequate explanation for its reduced sentence, specifically referencing defendant's alleged conduct violations while in custody and denying the motion to reconsider. In this case, the district court adopted the government's reasons why a 199-month sentence was warranted and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Beltran-Estrada" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's decision to deport and remove petitioner to Somalia and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's second-degree felony assault conviction is a particularly serious crime that bars statutory withholding of removal. The court also concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in finding that the particularly serious crime bar foreclosed petitioner's relief for withholding of removal under the CAT. Finally, the court need not address the likelihood that petitioner will be tortured because substantial evidence supports the IJ and the BIA's finding that his torture would not be directed by or acquiesced to by the Somali government. View "Jama v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. In denying both defendant's pro se motion for a sentence reduction and his counseled motion for reconsideration, the district court did not specifically address whether he is eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that it is unable to conduct meaningful appellate review of the district court's order. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a related Brady challenge, and his request for a lighter sentence. In this case, a jury found defendant guilty of conspiring to launder money and conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where defendant cannot satisfy most, if not all, of the elements that he must to receive a new trial. The court explained that a review of the trial testimony -- which includes no question about a government witness's recent or near-trial drug or alcohol use -- disproves the argument that the witness lied on the stand about recent or near-trial drug or alcohol use. Furthermore, defendant cannot show that he is entitled to a new trial based on the witness's post-trial revelation that she testified while drunk and high. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and compelling, and even if defendant had blocked the witness's testimony, an acquittal seems unlikely.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding against a Brady violation where, even if the government concealed the witness's mental state, defendant cannot show that such evidence counts as material impeachment evidence. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a downward sentencing departure where the district court made an individualized assessment under the facts presented, considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors, and gave a reasoned basis for exercising its judgment. View "United States v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the categorical approach does not require a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate both that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense and that there is a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes people for the conduct that makes the state offense broader than the federal offense. Rather, the categorical approach requires a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense.In this case, the BIA erred in finding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal on the basis of his Florida conviction for possession of marijuana. The court explained that the Florida statute is unambiguously broader than the federal law referenced in 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(C), and this was all that petitioner was required to show under the categorical approach. Furthermore, because the BIA did not properly consider the IJ's alternative grounds for denying relief, those issues are not properly before the court. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the Speedy Trial Act does not permit exclusion of days caused by the court's own scheduling conflicts resulting from a crowded docket. The court explained that this constitutes general congestion under the Act and is not a legitimate ground upon which to exclude days under the Act. In this case, because the district court's reason for delay was not excludable under the act, the court will permit the district court to determine in the first instance whether to dismiss the indictment with or without prejudice by applying the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2). The court also weighed the Barker factors and affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's Sixth Amendment claim. The court assessed the prejudice to defendant and concluded that her anxiety alone was insufficient to demonstrate prejudice. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of heroin, fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl resulting in victim's death. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find that defendant distributed the fentanyl that caused the victim's death. In this case, defendant, a known drug dealer, delivered the two grams in two packages and defendant was aware at the time he left the victim's motel room that the victim had overdosed and was unconscious. Moreover, that the trace amount of loose powder on the desk was pure fentanyl—and not the three-drug mixture of the unopened package—does not disprove that defendant distributed the drug to the victim. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to construct an aquaponics facility. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on willful blindness; the district court did not err by giving a jury instruction that enabled a finding that only defendant committed wire fraud; the district court did not err by giving an explicit unanimity instruction where there was no genuine risk of the jury finding nonunanimously; and defendant waived his argument that the district court did not err by sua sponte individually polling the jury. View "United States v. Burns" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release, concluding that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing a new offense. In this case, although the district court acknowledged that there was no one piece of information that was the proverbial smoking gun, it found that a combination of all of the pieces of evidence established that defendant had participated in one or more bank robberies. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing defendant's sentence where the district court sufficiently considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. View "United States v. Staten" on Justia Law