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 a firearm. The court held that the common law knock-and-announce rule does not apply when officers enter an open door and that the officers conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the district court did not clearly err when it found defendant's son entered the family house without closing the door, and the officer entered defendant's home with a felony arrest warrant and a reasonable belief he was present.The court also held that the district court did not procedurally err when it overruled defendant's objection to an obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant gave deceptive testimony that the front door was kicked open. Furthermore, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered a variety of factors at sentencing and did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant to the statutory maximum penalty of 120 months in prison when the Guidelines recommended he serve between 235 and 293 months in prison. View "United States v. Sherrod" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under Section 603(b) of the First Step Act. Defendant was convicted of four counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud for defrauding investors. The court need not determine whether the district court erred in adhering to the policy statements in USSG 1B1.13, because the district court knew its discretion. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying his compassionate release motion, stating that the court does not require district courts to mechanically recite the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court held that the district court appropriately reviewed the record evidence and found defendant's case not sufficiently persuasive to warrant relief. View "United States v. Rodd" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to nine counts of wire fraud, two counts of tax evasion, and one count of making and subscribing a false tax return. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 3B1.3 for abusing a position of private trust. In this case, it is clear that defendant would not have been able to commit or conceal her fraud if not for the discretion she was granted through her position as an office manager and bookkeeper in the company. View "United States v. Natysin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of receipt of child pornography and the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, law enforcement officers seized and searched defendant's devices under authorized warrants based on information furnished by Google, Inc. and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).The court held that the district court did not err when it found that Google's search of defendant's email accounts constituted a private search. In this case, Google did not act as a government agent because it scanned its users' emails volitionally and out of its own private business interests. Furthermore, Google did not become a government agent merely because it had a mutual interest in eradicating child pornography from its platform. Therefore, Google's continued actions in its own interest and the government's continued receipt of the reports does not give rise to some form of agency. Finally, the court held that because the investigator searched only the same files that Google searched, the government did not expand the search beyond Google's private party search. View "United States v. Ringland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for negligently crossing the highway's center line and sideswiping plaintiff's motorcycle. After the jury awarded plaintiff $7,000, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not plainly err by giving three comments to the jury; the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the damages proved; the district court's erroneous grant of judgment on the loss-of-earning capacity claim was harmless; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding cross-examination of the sheriff where the questioning would have been misleading, could have led to jury confusion, and was cumulative. View "Russell v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The court rejected defendant's contention that he was convicted in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, because defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of systemic exclusion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in defining reasonable doubt or in rejecting defendant's proposed instruction on the burden of proof; defendant's Rehaif claim failed because there was ample evidence that he was aware of his status as a person convicted of an offense punishable by more than a year in prison where he had served 22 years in prison; defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's supplemental instruction to the jury; sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction; the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Owens" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment to Mid-Century in an insurance coverage dispute over the amount Mid-Century owed plaintiff after her husband was struck and killed by an underinsured motor (UIM) vehicle.The court held that the fact that Mid-Century was licensed to write policies in Minnesota, combined with the husband's subsequent move to and residency there, does not dictate that the Mid-Century policy must be reformed to calculate UIM coverage under Minnesota's add-on approach. Consistent with the plain language of the statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that in order for Minnesota law to mandate that an insurer provide uninsured coverage consistent with that required by Section 65B.49 of the Minnesota Statutes, the insurance policy had to be renewed, delivered, or issued for delivery, or executed in Minnesota. Because Mid-Century issued the policy to plaintiff and her husband when they resided in Wisconsin and the policy was not renewed after the husband's move, section 65B.50's add-on approach to calculating UIM coverage is not required. Therefore, the court held that the plain language of the policy controls, which dictates a limits-less-paid approach to calculating UIM coverage. View "Brill v. Mid-Century Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's three prior Minnesota first degree aggravated robbery convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court explained that Minnesota aggravated robbery is an indivisible offense that includes the lesser included offense of simple robbery and is therefore categorically a violent felony. View "United States v. Redditt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence after he violated the terms of his supervised release. The court held that a revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) does not violate defendant's constitutional rights; defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court judge was impartial and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for recusal; the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant violated the conditions of his release by failing to reside at his residential re-entry center and by eluding the police; even if the district court's conclusion that defendant's conduct amounted to eluding the police was incorrect, the error did not affect defendant's sentence and was harmless; and the revocation sentence was neither procedurally unsound or substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Kenton Eagle Chasing" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden to prove that his substantial rights were affected by the Rehaif error. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to present photos of individual frames of the surveillance video and there was no Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 violation. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including both the mitigating and aggravating factors. View "United States v. Crumble" on Justia Law