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

Defendant appealed his sentence and restitution award stemming from his guilty plea to charges of drug-related conspiracy, money laundering, structuring to avoid reporting requirements, and conspiracy to engage in the interstate transportation of stolen goods. The court held that the district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 200 months' imprisonment; the court was unable to provide meaningful appellate review because the record did not reflect how the district court balanced the U.S.S.G. 5E1.2 factors in imposing defendant's $500,000 fine and, therefore, the court vacated the fine and remanded for redetermination of this portion of his sentence; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a restitution award in the amount of $300,000. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kay" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for three counts of transportation of child pornography and three counts of possession of child pornography. The court held that sufficient probable cause supported the search warrant and rejected defendant's argument that the warrant failed to establish a nexus between the items seized and the location to be searched; the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the entrapment defense violated his due process right to a fair trial where there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find entrapment; the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence; the district court did not err in applying a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); and the district court's presumptively reasonable sentence did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chase" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to one count of distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base and one count of distribution of marijuana. The court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims because he had not shown that the record was sufficiently developed to address his arguments or that a miscarriage of justice would result if the court declined to do so; the district court did not plainly err in failing to grant him "credit" for time spent in state custody under U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b); the court need not decide whether the district court erred in regards to defendant's general procedural sentencing challenges because any error was harmless; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where he received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the district court was lenient in ordering his federal sentence to run concurrent with the remaining portion of his Nebraska parole revocation sentence under U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to multiple drug charges. On appeal, defendant claimed that the district court committed procedural error by failing to address his objection to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that, even if the court assumed that defendant's objection was valid, unobjected-to facts in the PSR established an amount of methamphetamine resulting in the same Guidelines base offense level used by the district court when calculating defendant's Guidelines range. Therefore, the alleged procedural error would not have substantially influenced the outcome of defendant's sentencing and was harmless. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 170 months imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distributing five grams or more of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that it's holding in United States v. Johnson, that the court could not set aside a non-retroactivity determination as arbitrary and capricious, foreclosed defendant's argument that the Sentencing Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided not to make Amendment 709 retroactive. Because defendant was sentenced under the career offender provision, Amendments 750 and 759, which modified the drug quantity provision, were irrelevant. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before August 3, 2010, and who sought a reduction in their sentences under section 3582(c)(2). In this case, defendant was sentenced in 2004; the statutory maximum associated with defendant's cocaine base offense in 2004 applied to his current section 3582(c)(2) proceedings; and his guideline range was the same today as it was in 2004 and, therefore, he was not eligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reeves" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed his convictions, from four separate trials, of criminally transmitting the HIV virus in violation of Iowa Code 709C.1. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. The court concluded that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because he knew his HIV status to be "positive" and engaged in the type of "intimate contact" that the statute was plainly intended to prohibit; petitioner was precluded from asserting a void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute based on the hypothetical situations posed in his petitions and brief; and petitioner was precluded from asserting an overbreadth challenge to the statute because he did not raise any First Amendment concerns. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Musser v. Mapes" on Justia Law

Indigo and one of its employees filed suit against Advanced and Lile, alleging breach of contract, negligence, conspiracy, and violations of federal law on the theory that Advanced and Lile had intentionally delayed payments on valid insurance claims. Indigo argued on appeal that, despite receiving full reimbursement from the receiver, it suffered an injury because a monthly retention amount it had paid to Advanced was neither credited towards the employee's medical costs nor repaid by Indigo. The court agreed with the district court that Indigo failed to establish standing because Indigo failed to show how any injury had arisen, or might arise in the future, from the alleged conduct. View "Indigo LR LLC, et al. v. Advanced Ins. Brokerage, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of being a felon in possession of firearms. The court concluded that the evidence taken as a whole amply supported the jury's conclusion that defendant knew about and had possession of the weapons and, therefore, the district court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm where the evidence was relevant to a material issue and not unduly prejudicial; the district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's two requested jury instructions; and the district court did not commit plain error in imposing a minimum fine under the Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Cornelison" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for (1) carjacking, using or carrying a firearm in relation to a violent crime, obstructing justice, and witness tampering, in his first trial; and (2) two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in the second trial. The court concluded that, even if the court assumed that the district court had the authority to grant defendant a retroactive competency determination more than a year after judgment, defendant failed to persuade the court that the district court committed reversible error in denying his requested relief; the district court did not err in finding defendant competent to stand trial and to proceed with sentencing; a jury reasonably found defendant possessed the firearms as required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g); the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where there was probable cause to search for evidence of the robbery; defendant did not suffer any harm as a result of alleged sentencing errors; and defendant's remaining challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence of carjacking and the admission of evidence related to the July 27, 2008 burglary were foreclosed by the court's rejection of identical claims in defendant's son's direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Casteel" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly and intentionally distributing a mixture of heroine to an individual resulting in the individual's death, with the distribution occurring within 1,000 feet of a school, and knowingly and intentionally distributing a mixture containing heroine and a mixture containing cocaine base. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial where no Brady violation occurred related to the government's presentation of testimony from a certain witness; and the court granted the government's motion to strike defendant's supplemental brief where the only documentation defendant provided regarding transcripts from the motion in limine hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence was an authorization-for-payment request to the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law