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

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the admission of a witness's identifications during the police interview and at trial did not violate defendant's due process rights and were not based on impermissibly suggestive police procedures; evidence of defendant's prior involvement in cocaine distribution was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) to show motive and intent, and the evidence was not too remote in time nor was it more prejudicial than probative; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Hickman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry by a previously removed alien. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior conviction for second degree manslaughter in Kentucky, which was a crime of violence under section 2L1.2.View "United States v. Malagon-Soto" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a 20-year sentence that runs consecutive to his state sentence; the district court did not err in imposing a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(5) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; and the court declined to address defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Poe" on Justia Law

Defendants Campbell and Bailey appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute anabolic steroids and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendants claimed that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(a)(2) in calculating their offense level. The court concluded that defendants invited any procedural error in the calculation of their offense levels by signing plea agreements that recommended that the district court apply section 2S1.1(a)(2). The court also concluded that Bailey properly received criminal history points for his 1998 misdemeanor convictions and for commencing the current offense while on supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; one count of interstate transportation for prostitution; two counts of sex trafficking of a child; and one count of obstructing sex trafficking enforcement. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where the warrant provided enough detail for the officers to know the items to be searched; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary rulings; the court declined to address defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal; defendant's sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; and defendant's sentence did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death, was denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. The court concluded that counsel's decision not to have petitioner undergo a PET scan; introduce certain medical records from the early 1990s; hire a clinical and forensic psychologist; and interview and ultimately call three lay witnesses did not violate Strickland v. Washington. In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court's decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for habeas relief.View "Forrest v. Steele" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner failed to establish he belonged to a particular social group because gangs specifically targeted his family; petitioner failed to show that his family is different from any other Salvadoran family that has experienced gang violence; petitioner's political-opinion argument was waived because he raised it for the first time on administrative appeal; and, in regards to relief under the CAT, the IJ and BIA found no evidence that the police in El Salvador condone or participate in criminal activities and petitioner acknowledged that the police try to help. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.View "Antonio-Fuentes v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Viaero sought to construct a telecommunications tower in the City. After the City Council voted to deny Viaero's application for a permit to build the tower, Viaero filed suit for violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 47 U.S.C. 332. The court affirmed the district court's upholding of the City's decision where the City Council's denial of was "in writing" by being memorialized in a final resolution and "supported by substantial evidence."View "NE Colorado Cellular v. City of North Platte" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), petitioned for review of the BIA's order of removal. An IJ found petitioner's application frivolous and denied all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of frivolousness because the BIA failed to pinpoint a material element that petitioner deliberately fabricated. Neither the BIA nor the IJ adequately explained or supported the frivolousness determination in this case. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review.View "Limbeya v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against law enforcement as well as the City of Barling, alleging violations of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. Plaintiff subsequently accepted defendants' offer of judgment under Rule 68. On appeal, plaintiff challenged, inter alia, the district court's denial of prejudgment interest on his tort claims under Arkansas law. The court held that a Rule 68 consent judgment for a sum certain must, absent indication otherwise be deemed to include prejudgment interest. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest. The court also concluded that Rule 54 does not require an evidentiary hearing when ruling on plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. Finally, the district court's award of attorney's fees was reasonable where, inter alia, the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the prevailing market rate for civil rights litigation in the area. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Miller v. Dugan, et al." on Justia Law