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

Defendant appealed his sentence of 188 months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, a mixture containing cocaine, and a mixture containing marijuana. The court concluded that it is unneccessary to address whether defendant qualifies as a career offender under USSG 4B1.2 because the district court’s alternative decision to vary upward from the advisory guideline range is sufficient to justify the sentence imposed. In this case, the district court’s above-guidelines sentence is reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and found that defendant had a high risk of re-offending, and that the need to protect the public outweighed any mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, but was acquitted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's guilty verdict against defendant on the conspiracy to distribute charge. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for acquittal. The court also concluded that, because the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that defendant either had actual knowledge of the methamphetamine or deliberately failed to inquire about it, the willful blindness instruction was appropriate. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the jury a deliberate ignorance instruction. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Trejo" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, after pleading guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that information about defendant’s prior child pornography conviction, and his use of a computer to purchase or download images of nude minors from the Toronto Company, even though several years old at the time of the application, was relevant to a common sense determination about whether to issue the warrant and whether there was sufficient information to establish a fair probability that child pornography would be found at defendant’s home. Therefore, the court concluded that the information was sufficient to establish probable cause, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Even if probable cause to issue the search warrant was lacking, the Leon good-faith exception applies here. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the computer and Internet supervised release restrictions, and in imposing the camera and video recording restriction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Notman" on Justia Law

Defendants Shield and Alford appealed their sentences of 180 months in prison after being convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an upward departure under USSG 5K2.21 or 5K2.0(a)(2)(B), because the government had carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants had committed the assaults and the robbery as charged in the indictment and the district court determined that upward departures were warranted to reflect the seriousness of the offenses; defendants' Sixth Amendment rights were not violated where the district court treated the guidelines as advisory and sentenced defendants below the statutory maximum; and the district court announced it would have imposed the same sentences based upon an upward variance using the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors alone, which provides an alternative proper basis for the sentences imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Shield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against employees of DMH, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by forcibly collecting his fingerprints, a mouth swab, and a blood sample while he was confined at Fulton Hospital as a civilly committed sexually violent predator. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred when it dismissed his claim that defendants’ warrantless, forcible drawing of his blood to produce a DNA profile violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that defendants reasonably could have concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless collection of a civilly committed person’s DNA profile, and defendant had a reduced expectation of privacy as a civilly committed sexually violent predator; courts generally have recognized the collection of a blood sample as a minimally intrusive mechanism for obtaining information from individuals in state custody; and the district court did not err when it found that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. Furthermore, the court concluded that plaintiff's bare assertion that all of the defendants simultaneously “physically assaulted and attacked him” fails to state a claim that those defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carter v. Huterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a qui tam suit under the Minnesota False Claims Act (MFCA), Minnesota Statutes Annotated 15C.01 et seq., and the federal False Claims Acts (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., against UMMC, alleging that UMMC fraudulently induced MDHS to overreimburse it for services provided to Medical Assistance (MA) patients. The district court granted UMMC's motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint for a third time. Plaintiff alleges that UMMC's false or fraudulent claim is that it's children's unit was a "children's hospital." The court concluded that, in the absence of a statutory definition of "children's hospital," it was reasonable for UMMC to inquire about the proper classification of its children's unit. A reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language does not give rise to a FCA claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not incorrectly hold plaintiff to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard; plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to demonstrate that UMMC violated section 3729(a)(1)(G); and the court found no violation of section 3729(a)(1)(C). Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's proposed amendments would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Olson v. Fairview Health Serv." on Justia Law

Defendant appeals his sentence of 360 months in prison for the production and attempted production of child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where he was sentenced within the advisory guidelines; the district court specifically noted that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and a medical evaluation performed in advance of sentencing characterized defendant’s alleged mental difficulties as malingering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse and three counts of abusive sexual contact. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a fourth witness's testimony under FRE 414 where the testimony is probative and tends to show propensity, and where the fact that the testimony was cumulative does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the testimony. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a life sentence, which was within the Guidelines range, where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. St. Claire" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his recorded post-arrest statements where defendant's voluntary statements made alone in the squad car near the alleged crime scene with the video-recording device turned on and before defendant was Mirandized were admissible. The court also concluded that there was substantial evidence to prove that defendant possessed the firearm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of all nine counts of a federal indictment. Defendant's charges stemmed from his involvement in two carjackings. The court concluded that defendant failed to address whether the photographic lineup was suggestive and unnecessary; the Sixth Amendment did not forbid law enforcement from questioning him on the carjackings; the court rejected defendant's argument that there is insufficient proof to sustain the gun-related convictions; and there was sufficient evidence to establish that he participated in the carjackings. The court also concluded that defendant's 768 month sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment where the district court considered the physically threatening nature of his crimes, the use of deadly weapons in committing the crimes, and his degree of involvement in the crimes all negate an inference of gross disproportionality. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range and defendant does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law