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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court first concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during this arrest. In this case, detectives saw defendant shove another man and shout threatening words at him, which is itself potentially a crime under Missouri law. Because the detectives witnessed defendant committing what looked like an assault, they had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. The court also concluded that defendant has not shown that, but for the error in the jury instructions in light of Rehaif v. United States,139 S. Ct. at 2200, the outcome of his case would have been different. Therefore, defendant cannot establish plain error. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 42-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of theft of trade secrets and one count of making a false statement to the FBI, related to his access and use of confidential company information belonging to his former employer, DuPont, Inc.The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court committed no error in its factual findings as it related to its decision to vary upwards in imposing defendant's sentence; the district court committed no error in its application of the Guidelines to formulate defendant's sentencing range; and the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts as a basis to increase defendant's sentence. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not err in considering defendant's traffic infractions and past drug conviction in fashioning his sentence. Furthermore, the district court did not err by utilizing its wide latitude in assigning weight to specific sentencing factors, and nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court imposed a disproportionate sentence for defendant's crimes. View "United States v. Isler" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor. On remand, after denying defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court imposed a sentence of 151 months imprisonment and supervised release for life, and imposed a special assessment of $5,000 pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court clearly weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation. However, the court found that the district court clearly erred in its implicit finding that defendant was non-indigent and thus in imposing the special assessment. In this case, the district court clearly erred in not accounting for defendant's substantial negative net worth when it found he had the ability to pay in the future. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Barthman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm; one count of simple possession of methamphetamine; and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics offense.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and held that the district court did not err in finding that the officers' search of defendant's person was reasonable. In this case, officers ordered defendant to the ground and patted him down, they knew he had been riding in a stolen vehicle and they knew that the driver had not complied with the officers' demands following the stop. Furthermore, at that point in the tense standoff, officers possessed reasonable suspicion that defendant's possible involvement with the stolen vehicle made him guilty of tampering or car theft, and they were permitted to pat him down for weapons pursuant to Terry v. Ohio. Therefore, the guns and drugs found during the pat-down were admissible. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Nelson and Sykes pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. Both were serving state sentences at the time of their convictions. The district court sentenced Nelson to 77 months’ imprisonment and Sykes to 60 months’ imprisonment, with each federal sentence to run partially concurrent with the undischarged term of the respective defendant’s state sentences. The government had agreed to recommend sentences fully concurrent to the undischarged terms of state imprisonment. Both federal sentences were within the applicable advisory guideline range.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The district court addressed at length the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and the reasons given were sufficient to explain the court’s exercise of discretion on the question of concurrent sentencing. Neither state sentence was attributable solely to an offense that was relevant conduct to the federal drug conspiracy. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Hensley, charged with attempted enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. 2422(b)); attempted production of child pornography after having previously been convicted of child sex crimes (18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and 2251(e)), and possession of child pornography after having previously been convicted of child sex crimes (18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B)), moved to suppress evidence of statements he made during a custodial interrogation. The district court denied the motion, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the encounter became consensual by the time questioning began. Hensley was convicted on all counts and was sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court also rejected challenges to the instruction on how the jury could properly consider the evidence of his prior convictions and illustrative examples regarding a “substantial step.” Any error in denying the motion to suppress was harmless. The prosecutor’s closing remarks were fairly supported by the evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom. The court noted that the district court was required to impose 420 months imprisonment as Hensley’s total punishment. View "United States v. Hensley" on Justia Law

Weckman entered a credit union and placed an apparent make-shift bomb on the counter. The tellers placed approximately $1,600 in his duffle bag, including GPS-enabled fake currency. Weckman fled on a bicycle, which he abandoned minutes later. He entered a vehicle driven by Nelson. Law enforcement found the couple. Weckman exited the vehicle and ran with a duffle bag. In the vehicle, officers discovered the items Weckman had worn in the credit union. An officer found the bag near Weckman; it contained other materials used in the robbery and the stolen money. Officers later searched Weckman’s residence and discovered materials like those identified in the “bomb.: The investigation also revealed incriminating communications.Weckman was charged with aggravated bank robbery, with the lesser-included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) and (d). Nelson was charged with aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. 2. They were tried together. Each claimed to have been unknowingly caught up in the other’s scheme. Weckman claimed that these defenses were antagonistic and unsuccessfully moved for severance on the last day of trial. A jury convicted Weckman of the lesser-included offense of bank robbery and acquitted Nelson. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of the motion for severance. The jury instructions did not impermissibly modify the “intimidation” element of bank robbery from an objective inquiry into a subjective one; a juror’s dismissal for alleged misconduct cleansed the remaining jury of the resulting prejudice against Weckman. View "United States v. Weckman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 46 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. Even if the court assumes that the district court's statement at sentencing about gun violence in the Quad Cities was plainly erroneous because it was unsupported by the sentencing record and the PSR, defendant could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. In this case, there was no reasonable probability that but for the alleged error his sentence would have been lower. The court also held that defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including mitigation circumstances such as defendant's mental health history and his considerable post-offense rehabilitation efforts. View "United States v. Harrell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 190 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two drug counts, one for conspiracy and another for possession. The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's contention that his prosecutions in South Dakota and Iowa violated double jeopardy. The court explained that when defendant pleaded guilty in the Iowa case, he had not yet pleaded guilty in the South Dakota case. Therefore, jeopardy had not attached. Under this unusual scenario, the court stated that defendant should have filed the motion to dismiss in South Dakota, after he pleaded guilty in Iowa. Accordingly, the district court could not have erred when it refused to dismiss the Iowa conspiracy charge. The court also held that defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by not varying downward. View "United States v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, distributing methamphetamine, conspiring to commit money laundering, and tampering with a government witness. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court explained that, although defendant's argument relies in part on decisions that were issued after his sentencing, his challenge to the career offender determination was still a challenge to his sentence. Furthermore, a federal inmate generally must challenge a sentence through a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, and a post-judgment motion that fits the description of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence should be treated as a section 2255 motion. In this case, because defendant did not seek authorization to file a successive motion as required by section 2255(h), the district court correctly determined that defendant's challenge to his career offender determination was an unauthorized successive habeas petition. The court rejected defendant's other asserted ground for a sentence reduction, post-conviction rehabilitation. The court concluded that the district court correctly recognized that rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason. View "United States v. Fine" on Justia Law