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

Defendant was sentenced to 270 months of incarceration followed by five years of supervisor release following a conviction for various drug and gun crimes. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences on all charges, rejecting each of his appellate issues.The trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The tint on Defendant's window was dark enough to give the officer reasonable suspicion that Defendant's vehicle was in violation. The second traffic stop of Defendant was also supported by probable cause because Defendant's vehicle was missing license plates and he was speeding.The court also found that the evidence against Defendant was sufficient to support his convictions and that the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Tevin Maurstad" on Justia Law

After serving a prison sentence for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, Defendant began his five-year term of supervised release. He completed nearly four years without incident. In October 2020, the United States Probation Office filed a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision, alleging Defendant had committed two supervised release violations. At the revocation hearing, the government agreed with the Probation Office’s recommendation. Defendant claims the court abused its discretion in basing its sentence on the “minor conduct” that led to revocation, and by failing to account for his rehabilitation and success under supervised release.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order revoking Defendant’s term of supervised release. The court held that when imposing a revocation sentence, the individualized assessment required by Section 3553(a) allows the district court to consider relevant conduct underlying alleged supervised release violations that were dismissed. Here, the district court expressly took into account Defendant’s prior supervised release success. The court considered Defendant’s arguments weighed them against his offense conduct, and explained its reasons for imposing a within-range sentence. View "United States v. Thomas Dennis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement for possessing any firearm in connection with another felony offense, and its decision to depart upward under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.3 based on conduct for which Defendant was acquitted.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Defendant argued that the district court clearly erred in finding that the gun facilitated the marijuana possession. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant’s gun facilitated his drug possession. Defendant possessed the gun in public, on a public road in his car, and both the gun and at least some of the drugs were easily accessible; the gun was on the passenger-side floorboard and a baggie of marijuana was found in the center console.   Next, Defendant argued that the district court erred in departing upward under Section 4A1.3 based on the conduct of which he was acquitted. The court held that the district court’s reliance on acquitted conduct to depart upward did not violate Defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Second, the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant recklessly used a firearm, resulting in serious injury. Third, the district court adequately explained why the applicable criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of Defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that he will commit other crimes. Finally, though Defendant disagreed with the district court’s weighing of the factors, that does not make his sentence substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. DeShaun Bullock, Jr." on Justia Law

Kansas City Officer (“Officer”) shot and killed the victim during a foot chase. Family members of the victim filed suit and the district court concluded that the Officer was entitled to both qualified and official immunity. In addition to contesting the grant of summary judgment on appeal, Plaintiffs argued they should receive a trial on their claims against the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and the other municipal officials named in their complaint.   In evaluating the family’s excessive-force claim against the Officer, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that the key issue requires answering whether the officer’s actions violated a constitutional right and then whether the right was clearly established. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has explained that “the focus” of the clearly-established-right inquiry “is on whether the officer had fair notice that [his] conduct was unlawful.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018). Here, “judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct,” a reasonable officer would not have had “fair notice” that shooting the victim under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.     Additionally, to prevail in this case under Kisela, the family would need to establish “the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.” Here, the family failed to show that the Officer acted in bad faith or with malice. Finally, there is not enough evidence to find that the municipal defendants liable under a deliberate indifference theory. View "N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Presentence Report recommended a 4-level enhancement for possessing the gun “in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The “other felony” was a violation of Iowa Code Section  724.4(1) (2018) (amended 2021). At the time, that provision prohibited “knowingly carr[ying] or transport[ing] in a vehicle a pistol or revolver.” But the Iowa legislature significantly amended the statute before Defendant’s sentencing hearing.   The district court found that the relevant version was the one in effect at the time of the offense, and applied the enhancement. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court misapplied the enhancement because the relevant version for Guidelines purposes is the one in effect at the time of sentencing.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed and explained that the district court correctly found that, for purposes of Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the relevant version of Iowa Code Section 724.4(1) is the one in effect at the time of the offense, not at the time of sentencing. View "United States v. Adnan Alibegic" on Justia Law

Petitioner was ordered removed to China after he was convicted of aiding and abetting marriage fraud in order to evade immigration laws and procure his admission to the United States, see 8 U.S.C. Sections 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii), 1325(c), and an immigration judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).   The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded Petitioner’s motion was untimely and numerically barred, and he was not excused from these bars because he failed to show a material change in country conditions. The BIA also concluded Petitioner failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief. Finally, it declined to exercise its discretion to grant reopening sua sponte.   The Eighth Circuit denied the petition and vacated Petitioner’s stay of removal. The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen based on his failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. Although Petitioner argued he was not attempting to reassert or relitigate his prior claim, he specifically included the alleged 2005 detention in both his new application and personal statement, and he continued to assert entitlement to relief based on underground Christian churches. The IJ therefore rationally concluded Petitioner’s new claim lacked factual independence. Further, Petitioner proffered no evidence—new or otherwise—to corroborate the alleged 2005 detention, interrogation, and beating. View "Caimin Li v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, garbage haulers and processors, sued Goodhue County, Minnesota. (“County”) and state-owned plant in Red Wing, Minnesota (the “City Plant”). Plaintiffs argued that an ordinance requiring all garbage to be deposited at the City Plant violated the Commerce Clause by benefitting an in-state company (Xcel) at the expense of out-of-state haulers and processors. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling affirming summary judgment holding that the ordinance did not implicate the dormant Commerce Clause. The court explained that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 8, cl. 3. “The dormant Commerce Clause is the negative implication of the Commerce Clause: states may not enact laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.”  The Commerce Clause was “never intended to cut the States off from legislating on all subjects relating to the health, life, and safety of their citizens, though the legislation might indirectly affect the commerce of the country.”  Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that they are able to convert the garbage into refuse-derived fuel, nor do they allege that they have the ability to burn refuse-derived fuel to create electricity. Thus, the Defendants, therefore, are not competitors with either the City Plant or Xcel. View "Paul's Industrial Garage, Inc. v. Goodhue County" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was on probation for possession of methamphetamine, illegally harvested timber, cut it up into firewood and burned it. Defendant left the fires unattended and when he returned the fire had spread. Defendant fled the area and did not report the fire. Defendant pleaded guilty to willfully burning timber, underbrush, grass, and other material on public lands owned by the United States in the Buffalo National River.The pre-sentence report provided a base offense level of 24, based on Defendant creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to firemen, nearby residents, and guests of the park. The PSR applied a two-level enhancement for Defendant's attempt to cover up his illegal timber harvesting by starting the fire. Based on Defendant's criminal history and acceptance of responsibility, his guidelines were 92 to 115 months; however, the statutory maximum for the offense was 60 months. The court sentenced Defendant to 60 months.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. The district court did not err in applying the enhancement for creating a risk of death or serious bodily injury based on the size of the fire and the remote, rugged area where it was located. The court also rejected Defendant's claim that the fire was intended to conceal his illegal timber harvesting operation. View "United States v. Jacob Walls" on Justia Law

A police officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle after the officer observed it traveling 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The driver did not stop and led the officer on a high-speed chase before crashing. Two people exited the vehicle and fled. The officer pursued Defendant, who was the passenger. The officer used his taser on Defendant, who then grabbed a nearby firearm and pointed it at the officer. The officer shot Defendant, who was later indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon.The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress any evidence recovered after he was tased, and a jury ultimately convicted Defendant. Defendant appealed.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. By tasing Defendant, the officer executed a warrantless arrest. However, this arrest was supported by probable cause based on the traffic stop and Defendant's subsequent flight despite the officer's demands to stop. The court determined that the officer reasonably thought that Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.The Eighth Circuit rejected Defendant's remaining challenges to his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Meamen Nyah" on Justia Law

Appellants were charged by superseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. At sentencing, the district court varied downward, sentencing each Appellant to a term below the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range. Appellants challenged their sentences, with one Appellant additionally arguing that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop of his vehicle.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and first held that the traffic stop was not unlawfully extended based on the facts presented. The court found that viewing the facts cumulatively and considering the Officer’s extensive experience and training, the Officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop of Appellant’s vehicle. Here, Appellant’s demeanor was suspicious; he was visibly “shaking,” “twitching,” and “trembling,” his mouth was noticeably dry, he appeared increasingly uncomfortable when pressed about his travel plans, and he attempted to change the topic of conversation.   Next, the court held that the Appellants’ sentences were not substantively unreasonable. The court reasoned that a district court may vary from a Guideline on policy grounds, but it is not required to do so. Here, the district court did not commit a procedural error when it denied Appellant’s argument that he should receive a mitigating role reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2(b) as he played multiple roles in the drug trafficking organization. Consequently, the court did not err in applying a three-level reduction pursuant to Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(a)(5). View "United States v. Felipe Noriega, Jr." on Justia Law