Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States v. Zauner
Defendant pled guilty to production of child pornography for photographs she took of her daughters at ages six and two. The district court sentenced Defendant to 216 months, departing and varying downward from Defendant's guideline sentence of 360 months. Defendant challenged her sentence on appeal as substantively unreasonable. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the record demonstrated that the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in light of the mitigating evidence presented and the gravity of the offense; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence and that Defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.
Meador v. Branson
In 1994, Defendant was convicted of sex crimes in Kentucky. When Defendant moved to North Dakota in 2008, he was required to register as a sex offender. Because Defendant did not have a residence for a short while, he did not properly register. North Dakota then filed a criminal complaint against Defendant, charging him with failure to comply with registration requirements. The trial court convicted Defendant as charged. Defendant appealed, arguing that the state district court erred in interpreting N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-32-15(7) as requiring him to register within three days even though he had not obtained an address. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in federal court that included an amended claim arguing he was denied due process of law by the state's attorney interpreting the statute to include persons who have no residence to register. The district court granted the certificate of appealability on the amended claim. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the AEDPA and Bouie v. City of Columbia, the state court's interpretation of its own statute was not an unforeseeable and retroactive expansion of statutory language.
United States v. Walker
Nicole Walker and Bart Hyde pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. Defendants appealed their respective sentences, arguing that the district court clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to each of them. Hyde also argued that the district court erred in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement and failed to reduce Hyde's sentence for acceptance of responsibility. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not rely on unreliable evidence or apply an overly broad definition of conspiracy; (2) the district court did not clearly err in determining Defendants distributed "ice" as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines; (3) the district court did not err in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement based on the court's determination that Defendant intentionally gave false testimony; and (4) the district court did not err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
United States v. Steffen
Defendant was indicted for bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The government alleged that Defendant's sale of collateral pledged as security for a loan from a bank and his failure to carry out his disclosure duties under the security agreement amounted to a scheme to defraud for purposes of the bank, mail, and wire fraud statutes. The district court dismissed the indictment, finding (1) a false representation is a required element of a federal fraud offense and the indictment failed to allege any express misrepresentation by Defendant; and (2) absent a statutory, fiduciary, or independent disclosure duty, nondisclosure was insufficient to state a fraud claim under any of the charged offenses. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the indictment for failure to state an offense, as the indictment failed to sufficiently allege a scheme to defraud under the mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes.
United States v. Roberts
Defendant was convicted of being a felon and an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm. Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress as well as a condition of supervised release that the district court imposed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when a law enforcement officer extended the duration of the traffic stop to inquire as to Defendant's warrant status; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it recognized the threat of cross addiction and responded by imposing a special condition of supervised release that prohibited Defendant from the use of alcohol and from entering establishments whose primary source of income is derived from the sale of alcohol.
United States v. Bui
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The plea agreement recited that Defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison but that he could be eligible for a safety valve reduction upon the condition that he truthfully provide to the government all information he had concerning the offense. At sentencing, the district court concluded the safety value reduction did not apply and imposed a sixty-month sentence. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not provide the government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing, the court had no choice but to deny a safety valve reduction.
United States v. Thompson
Defendant appealed the sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. Defendant committed his offense prior to passage of the Fair Sentencing Act but was indicted, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced after the Act's passage. Defendant argued at sentencing that he should be sentenced in accordance with the Act. The district court, following the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent in United States v. Sidney, held the Act did not apply to Defendant. As such, the court imposed a sixty-month mandatory minimum term of incarceration and a four-year mandatory minimum term of supervised release. Subsequent to Defendant's sentencing, the Supreme Court abrogated the Eighth Circuit's precedent, finding the Act applicable to defendants in Defendant's position. The Eighth Circuit (1) affirmed the imposition of the sixty-month term of incarceration, holding it was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by adequate explanation; and (2) reversed for reconsideration the term of supervised release. Remanded.
United States v. Godat
Defendant waived indictment and was charged by information with structuring financial transactions for the purpose of evading currency-transaction reporting requirements and with evading taxes. The district court, varying upwards from Defendant's guidelines range, sentenced him to sixty-months' imprisonment for his illegal structuring charge and ten months' imprisonment for his tax evasion charge and ordered that the sentences run consecutively. The court also ordered restitution in the full amount of the underlying fraud. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in determining Defendant's sentence; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when it criticized his attorney for advising him not to cooperate with the probation office in preparing his presentence investigation report.
United States v. Darden
Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to 200 months imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) nothing in the record established that the conduct engaged in by the government during grand jury proceedings required dismissal of the indictment; (2) the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence; and (3) the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument, but the trial record taken as a whole did not show that Defendant was entitled to reversal of his convictions.
Meirovitz v. United States
A jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The presentence report classified Defendant as a career offender with a sentencing guidelines range of 360 months to life, and a district court sentenced him to life in prison without parole. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. Defendant later brought a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that, pursuant to Johnson v. United States, his conviction for manslaughter in the second degree under Minn. Stat. 609.205, which contributed to his classification as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, was not a crime of violence. The district court denied Defendant's motion. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, pursuant to Sun Bear v. United States, Defendant's motion under section 2255 was not cognizable.