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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition, namely, five .45-caliber shell casings found at the scene of the shooting. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that defendant was the shooter and that the shell casings were knowingly discharged from the shooter's firearm. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion to control closing arguments when it did not sua sponte challenge the prosecutor's rebuttal closing arguments. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantial upward variance and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Obi" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals a portion of the judgment in his criminal case imposing an assessment of $5,000 under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The court concluded that a remand for further proceedings is warranted where defendant has established that the district court relied on a plainly erroneous understanding of his net worth in determining whether he was indigent. Furthermore, defendant was prejudiced by this factual error and the court exercised its discretion to correct the factual error. View "United States v. Ohlmeier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in a case where he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing heroin. The court concluded that the information contained in the affidavit supporting the search warrant application was sufficient to establish probable cause. In this case, even though the indictment cited 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), the indictment adequately informed defendant that he was being charged with conduct prohibited in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(i)—that is, knowingly possessing, in furtherance of drug trafficking. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Lopez-Castillo pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as both a felon and a domestic violence misdemeanant, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), (g)(9); 924(a)(2). The district court concluded Lopez-Castillo’ had two prior convictions for crimes of violence (U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2)): an Iowa arson offense and his Arizona aggravated assault offense, resulting in a recommended sentencing range of 110-120 months of imprisonment. The court sentenced Lopez-Castillo to 102 months of imprisonment. Lopez-Castillo appealed, challenging only the conclusion that aggravated assault under Ariz. Stat. 13-1204(B) qualifies as a crime of violence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. One element of aggravated assault under Arizona law requires a defendant to have “intentionally or knowingly impede[d] the normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck or by obstructing the nose and mouth either manually or through the use of an instrument.” Lopez-Castillo necessarily used force to satisfy this element because to be convicted he must have either “appl[ied] pressure to the throat or neck” of another person or “obstruct[ed] the nose and mouth” of another person. That element categorically entails force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person. Lopez-Castillo necessarily used physical force, knowingly or intentionally. View "United States v. Lopez-Castillo" on Justia Law

He, a 28-year-old native of China, entered the U.S. in 2012 without inspection. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution and torture in China because of his Christian faith. An Immigration Judge denied relief. The IJ found his testimony credible but noted that He did not know the denomination of the faith that was practiced during the two gatherings he attended and had never heard of anyone getting in trouble for attending a Christian government-authorized church. The IJ found that the evidence of the harm He described during two detentions, including an assault by police, does not rise to the level of persecution contemplated by the” Act. He failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, presenting no evidence that "anyone associated with the Chinese government is looking for him, or that he would be harmed or persecuted . . . if he practices his Christian religion in China.”The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. Substantial evidence supported the finding that HE failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his religious beliefs. He failed to establish eligibility for asylum and necessarily cannot meet the more rigorous standard for proof of withholding of removal. View "He v. Garland" on Justia Law

Alissa's Flowers filed suit against State Farm, alleging that it had overpaid its premiums to State Farm in light of its significantly lower exposure rate due to COVID-19. State Farm moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Missouri law required that Alissa's Flowers bring its claims before the director of the Missouri Department of Insurance.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the administrative review process set forth in Mo. Rev. Stat. 379.348 applies in the commercial insurance context and to plaintiff's claims in this case. The court explained that the district court properly determined that Alissa's Flowers was required to exhaust administrative remedies because the claims, in essence, constitute a challenge to State Farm's rates, rating plan, rating system and underwriting rules. Finally, the complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but rather for lack of authority to grant relief. View "Alissa's Flowers, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for theft of government property, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. In this case, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that inflation of the billing and payroll numbers was a coordinated effort, and that defendant was behind the theft. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. View "United States v. Njoroge" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the suppression ruling and the convictions for receipt of child pornography, but remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate one of the possession convictions. The court concluded that the probation officers had objective bases to suspect defendant's vehicle contained evidence of release violations, and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. The court declined to adjudicate defendant's premature ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.However, the court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents convictions under both 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) and 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) for the possession of a single material containing child pornography. Because the district court imposed concurrent sentences, the court concluded that the appropriate remedy is to remand with directions to vacate one of the multiplicitous convictions. View "United States v. Kuhnel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, concluding that application of the federal firearms statute did not violate his rights under the Second Amendment. The court rejected defendant's contention that the location of his firearm in the home for the alleged purpose of self-defense, by itself, makes 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him.In regard to sentencing, the district court classified defendant as an armed career criminal based on three prior convictions, including one for terroristic threats under Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 28-311.01. Because that offense does not qualify as a violent felony, the court concluded that defendant had not sustained the requisite three prior convictions, and he must be resentenced without the armed career criminal classification. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a felon in possession of a firearm offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his multiple prior felony convictions, including three predicate serious drug offenses. The court rejected defendant's contention that his ACCA enhancement based on a prior juvenile offense violated the Eighth Amendment. Rather, under this court's established precedents, using the juvenile conviction as an ACCA predicate does not violate the Eighth Amendment, U.S. v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546,553 (8th Cir. 2009) and U.S. v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1349 (2017). View "United States v. Winfrey" on Justia Law