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

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The district court sentenced Defendant to 48 months of imprisonment. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The parties agree there are two issues on appeal, whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to (1) conduct a Terry stop on Defendant and (2) command Defendant to stand for a frisk.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Defendant only challenged the district court’s legal conclusions, there is no basis to disturb the district court’s findings of fact. The court further reasoned that Defendant’s answers to the officer’s questions about why he was at the salvage lot at 3:00 a.m. were odd because he was waiting at the salvage lot in the middle of the night so he could inquire about a stolen car in the morning and Defendant had not reported it stolen. Under a totality of the circumstances analysis, these facts were sufficient to provide the officer with reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.   Further, while Defendant argued the bulge in his pockets was insufficient to justify the frisk, under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to fear for his safety. Therefore, the court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the attempted frisk. View "United States v. Victor Stokes" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of offenses involving interstate transportation of stolen property and witness tampering. The district court sentenced him to a total of 108 months imprisonment, along with a term of supervised release and restitution. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the district court erred when imposing the sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Defendant’s co-conspirator gave detailed testimony about the scheme that was neither incredible nor insubstantial on its face. His testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including security camera videos, GPS data, and seized evidence of burglaries. The court, therefore, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for conspiracy and for aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of stolen property. Further, the court found that Defendant’s criminal history and offense conduct, including his commission of witness tampering while on pretrial release, adequately justified the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Bryan Kirkendoll, II" on Justia Law

A grand jury charged the five appellants with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Each appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the conspiracy involved the importation of methamphetamine from Mexico. Because the offense involved large quantities of methamphetamine with a high level of purity, the court reasonably inferred that the drugs were coming directly from a “super lab” that produces methamphetamine. Further, the increase applies whether or not a defendant knew that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine. For this reason, the district court correctly applied the increase to all four defendants, and it is unnecessary to consider whether the evidence supported a finding that three of them knew about the importation of drugs. View "United States v. Travis Werkmeister" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, one count of health care fraud, and one count of obtaining controlled substances by fraud. Defendant caused multiple persons, including her daughter and significant other, to inflict serious bodily injury on themselves. In some instances, she inflicted the injuries herself by using a rock to smash their hands. Defendant secured their injuries to enable them to obtain pain medication for her use. Their injuries and the lack of prompt, proper treatment ultimately resulted in amputated fingers.   The district court sentenced Defendant to 144 months in prison, a 36-month upward variance. She appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of her sentence. She argues that it resulted from “an unreasonable weighing decision in that it was unjustified by the record and explanation.” Defendant also argued that the district court’s articulated reasons did not warrant an upward variance because the calculated Guidelines range sufficiently accounted for them.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that despite One Defendant’s assertions to the contrary, the district court expressly accounted for her upbringing, prior abuse, and addiction. It stated, “we can’t overlook the reality that she’s had a very difficult journey in life herself, and then struggling with the addiction issues,” but that “it’s not offered as an excuse for the behavior.” The district court also noted that the seriousness of the crime warranted commensurate consequences, “especially when there’s physical injury to five different victims in the setting of these facts.” View "United States v. Frenchone One Horn" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. In his petition, Petitioner argued that the IJ erred as a matter of law in denying his application for cancellation of removal based on the IJ’s conclusion that the harm Petitioner’s children will suffer upon his removal is not “exceptional and extremely unusual.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Petitioner’s argument is actually an “argument . . . that the [IJ] erred in failing to afford what he believes is sufficient weight to Petitioner’s step-son’s emotional hardship in rendering the hardship determination.” The court explained that a petitioner’s argument “that the [Board] applied the incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors” is actually a challenge to the Board’s discretionary determination that the court lacks jurisdiction to review. View "Artemio Garcia-Pascual v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Philander Smith College fired Plaintiff after she referred to a student as “retarded” for using a cell phone during class. She sued for sex discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract. After granting summary judgment to the college on the first two claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Plaintiff has not put forward sufficient evidence of pretext. So summary judgment marks the end of the road for her sex-discrimination claim. Further, the court reasoned that even if the conditions were intolerable, in other words, Plainitff’s own role in provoking these incidents undermines the claim that the college created a workplace full of discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Moreover, the court explained once Plaintiff’s federal claims were gone, the district court had no obligation to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Arkansas breach-of-contract claim. View "Patricia Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith College" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge that he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. He was charged with this offense on December 15, 2020, and arrested on December 17. A warrant search of his residence on December 20 found marijuana, cannabis flowers, cocaine, digital scales, drug packaging, stockpiles of magazines and ammunition, and a handgun. Defendant pleaded guilty to the Section 922(g)(3) offense in October 2021. The government agreed not to file charges related to the December arrest and warrant search (the “December 2020 search”), and to request a within-guidelines-range sentence. In calculating the advisory guidelines range, the PSR increased the offense level because Defendant used drugs and the Glock handgun in connection with his Section 922(g) offense. The district court overruled Defendant’s objections to the enhancements, adopted the PSR in full, and imposed a 72-month sentence. Defendant appealed the sentence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that even without evidence of Defendant’s activities at the residence in the intervening period, during which he was tried and convicted of state drug offenses, the court concluded this evidence is consistent with the findings of relevant conduct in Anderson (“a career of drug dealing”), and in Lawrence (“continuous pattern of drug activity”). Thus, the district court did not commit error, much less “clear or obvious” plain error, when it failed to find that Defendant’s conduct revealed by the December 2020 arrest and search, as set forth in the PSR and in Special Agent’s testimony, was not relevant conduct under Section 1B1.3 of the Guidelines. View "United States v. Gregorio Soto, Jr." on Justia Law

After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm and, in a separate count, of being a felon in possession of ammunition, following a shooting in north Minneapolis. The district court imposed concurrent 115-month sentences on each count. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of the interstate commerce element of the firearm offense, insufficient evidence of possession of ammunition and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The government’s appeal brief noted that the two counts are multiplicitous and should have been merged for sentencing purposes.   The Eighth Circuit agreed the firearm and ammunition convictions are multiplicitous as submitted to the jury. Therefore, one must be vacated to eliminate plain error prejudice, the two $100 special assessments. The court otherwise affirmed. The court reasoned in these circumstances, it was plain error not to merge the two counts for sentencing purposes, and the appropriate remedy is to remand with directions to vacate one of the multiplicitous convictions. The court left to the district court which of the two counts to vacate. The court wrote it does not require full resentencing or a new trial. View "United States v. Johnnie Haynes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s1 denial of his pro se motion to terminate supervision or modify conditions of supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 and his Fifth Amendment due process rights when it denied Defendant’s motion in a sealed document without the procedural protections of appointed counsel, a hearing, and the opportunity to review and challenge the U.S. Probation Office’s recommendation. Additionally, he challenged the terms of his supervised release as overbroad and unconstitutional.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court did not violate Rule 32.1(c)(1) by failing to provide Defendant with counsel and a hearing before it denied his motion to terminate supervision or modify the conditions of his supervised release. By its plain language, Rule 32.1(c)(1) applies only if a district court “modif[ies] the conditions of . . . supervised release.” Here, the district court refused to modify Defendant’s conditions of supervised release. Under Rule 32.1’s plain language, neither a hearing nor counsel was required before the court denied Defendant’s motion. Further, because Defendant suffered no prejudice from the information contained in the Supervision Summary, no due-process violation occurred. View "United States v. James Norris, Jr." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and his request for a Franks hearing. The court explained that because Defendant was not unlawfully questioned, his contention that he could not have knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights because of the allegedly unlawful questioning necessarily fails. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and his request for a Franks hearing. Defendant asserted that the district court correctly held that “law enforcement’s two warrantless K9 sniffs of the curtilage of his home were violations of the Fourth Amendment.” Defendant also argued that the district court erred, however, in ultimately denying his motion to suppress based on its application of the Leon good faith exception.    The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the two dog sniffs occurred in September 2019; at that time, we “had neither expressly overruled Scott nor explained how Jardines applies to apartment doors in a common hallway.” The applicable standard is an objective—not subjective—one. Applying this standard, the district court correctly denied Defendant’s suppression motion. The court agreed with the government that Defendant’s challenges to the search warrant affidavit’s omission of certain details about the two dog sniff amount to “an attempt to relitigate the merits of the curtilage issue.”   Further, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements given while he was in custody. As the district court correctly explained, “Police asked Defendant a series of simple questions to confirm his identity and ensure officer safety. They were not seeking to elicit incriminating responses from Defendant. He was read his Miranda rights prior to his further questioning in the bathroom and upon the continued questioning at the police station.” His contention that he could not have knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights because of the allegedly unlawful questioning necessarily fails. View "United States v. Donell Hines" on Justia Law