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

After defendant was convicted of wire fraud, making a false and fraudulent claim, and making false statements, the district court granted a judgment of acquittal on two counts of making false statements, and a new trial on the remaining counts. The government appealed. Defendant's charges stemmed from his application of a disaster-loan application to the SBA. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that defendant made a false statement by affirming no substantial adverse change in his financial condition. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting a judgment of acquittal on Count 7 for false representations to the SBA. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in granting acquittal on Count 8 where no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant willfully and knowingly made a false statement. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the remaining counts where it weighed the evidence supporting the verdicts against the exculpatory evidence before concluding in a thorough, reasoned manner that a miscarriage of justice may occur if the verdicts were allowed to stand. The district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in doing so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stacks" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his four prior convictions for aggravated burglary. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that defendant's three aggravated burglary convictions are separate predicate offenses under the ACCA and that the district court correctly determined that defendant thus qualifies as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Pledge" on Justia Law

Defendant, a potato farmer, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements to influence the United States USDA, and making false statements to law enforcement. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his fraudulent insurance claim and disaster relief application certifying that his potato crop had been damaged by naturally occurring soft rot. The government ultimately paid out several hundred thousand dollars in indemnity and disaster relief. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions where a juror could find that he intentionally damaged the potatoes. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements based on obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 for attempting to bribe a witness, and the total loss amount under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) based on a total loss amount of between $400,000 and $1 million. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and sentenced to 42 months in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release. Defendant Krug and co-defendant Elliot operated a Ponzi scheme. The court concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Krug intentionally participated in the agreement to defraud investors. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying his motion to proceed pro se where the district court was unable to determine that Krug’s attempted waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary based on his obstructionist behavior. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Krug" on Justia Law

After defendant successfully moved to suppress his statements to authorities made at a telemarketing firm where he worked, the United States appealed. Weighing the totality of the circumstances, the court agreed with the magistrate judge’s recommended finding that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have felt free to terminate or leave the interview with officers. In this case, applying the six non-exclusive indicia of custody pursuant to United States v. Griffin, the court concluded that defendant was not subject to a custodial investigation where the officers did not employ a ruse or deceptive strategem to detain defendant and defendant was not particularly susceptible to deception. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Laurita" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two men previously arrested in Ramsey County, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the County's collection of all of a detained arrestee's cash upon booking and its related practices violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. After collecting the cash, the county automatically deducts a $25 booking fee. The county later returns the arrestee’s remaining funds in the form of a prepaid debit card. Joining the Sixth Circuit, the court concluded that the private interest at stake is relatively modest and that the county's interest in collecting the fees at booking is substantial. The county's interest in upfront collection of this fee weighs more heavily than the relatively modest private interests of the arrestees. As written, this policy allows for the correction of any errors inherent in the overinclusive system of upfront collection. In this case, plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to establish that Ramsey County’s booking-fee policy fails to pass constitutional muster simply because it provides a post-deprivation remedy instead of a pre-deprivation hearing. The court rejected plaintiffs' contention that post-deprivation process simply cannot suffice. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings. View "Mickelson v. County of Ramsey" on Justia Law

Defendants Nshanian and Nash were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a scheme to purchase real estate using material misrepresentations. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Nshanian where a reasonable jury could infer that he knew of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud, and that he intended to defraud lenders. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Nshanian’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The court also concluded that the district court did not err at sentencing when it imposed a two-level increase for obstruction of justice pursuant to USSG 3C1.1 where the record is clear that the district court recognized its obligation to consider whether inaccurate testimony resulted from confusion, mistake or faulty memory. Under these circumstances, the district court’s finding was adequate. The court also concluded that Nshanian's 42-month sentence was substantively reasonable where it represented a substantial downward variance from the advisory guideline range. Finally, Nash's 42-month sentence was also substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and sentenced Nash to a lower advisory guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Arman Nshanian" on Justia Law

The IRS disallowed all deductions and losses reported by RJT on its 2001 partnership return. It also determined that a 40-percent accuracy-related penalty for gross misstatement of partnership basis would be applied to any underpayment of tax by RJT partners resulting from the adjustments made to the RJT partnership return. RJT and Thompson challenged these adjustments in a partnership-level proceeding before the Tax Court, but the adjustments, including imposition of the penalty, were affirmed by the Tax Court and by this court on appeal. Then the Thompsons filed a petition in the Tax Court to challenge both the tax deficiency and the penalty. The IRS contends that the Thompsons are prohibited from challenging the Tax Court’s jurisdiction over the penalty issue under the law-of-the-case doctrine. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Tax Court did not err by dismissing the penalty issue for lack of jurisdiction. View "Thompson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and the district court subsequently granted his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Petitioner proceeded to trial and was convicted. Petitioner then filed a motion collaterally attacking his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing, inter alia, that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by considering and granting his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea without first conducting a hearing under Faretta v. California. The court rejected petitioner's claim but granted a certificate of appealability. The court held that petitioner was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the district court granted his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea. The record clearly shows that petitioner’s alleged waiver was knowing and intelligent. Further, the record from petitioner's four-day evidentiary hearing on his section 2255 motion shows that he understood the danger of abandoning his plea agreement. In this case, petitioner's lawyer repeatedly advised him against withdrawing his plea and warned him that he would receive a substantially longer sentence if he went to trial. Even without counsel's advice, the circumstances show that petitioner had sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice whether to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fiorito v. United States" on Justia Law

The district court reduced defendant's sentence of 324 months in prison to 294 months after an amendment to the sentencing guidelines lowered the advisory guideline range applicable to his offense of conviction (conspiracy to distribute controlled substances). Defendant appealed. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by declining to grant him the maximum reduction available as it had previously. The court concluded that the district court's conclusion that a 294 month sentence was appropriate is not inconsistent with its prior decision. The court also concluded that the district court considered defendant's age, health, and all other relevant factors in its decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Denton" on Justia Law