Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants were charged by superseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. At sentencing, the district court varied downward, sentencing each Appellant to a term below the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range. Appellants challenged their sentences, with one Appellant additionally arguing that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop of his vehicle.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and first held that the traffic stop was not unlawfully extended based on the facts presented. The court found that viewing the facts cumulatively and considering the Officer’s extensive experience and training, the Officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop of Appellant’s vehicle. Here, Appellant’s demeanor was suspicious; he was visibly “shaking,” “twitching,” and “trembling,” his mouth was noticeably dry, he appeared increasingly uncomfortable when pressed about his travel plans, and he attempted to change the topic of conversation.   Next, the court held that the Appellants’ sentences were not substantively unreasonable. The court reasoned that a district court may vary from a Guideline on policy grounds, but it is not required to do so. Here, the district court did not commit a procedural error when it denied Appellant’s argument that he should receive a mitigating role reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2(b) as he played multiple roles in the drug trafficking organization. Consequently, the court did not err in applying a three-level reduction pursuant to Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(a)(5). View "United States v. Felipe Noriega, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was pulled over for speeding. Defendant and her passenger consented to a vehicle search, which revealed 28.4 pounds of heroin. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court denied, at which point Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing heroin with intent to distribute. Seeking safety valve relief, Defendant gave a proffer interview to law enforcement, explaining how she became involved in drug trafficking, including who recruited her and the methods used to transport the drugs, as well as how she supported herself since coming to the United States. However, at sentencing, the district court determined Defendant was not entirely truthful about the source of funds in her bank account and denied relief. The court then sentenced Defendant to 120 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. The district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The district court was entitled to make a credibility determination regarding whether Defendant was speeding. Additionally, the officer did not exceed his authority when asking Defendant out of the car and did not unreasonably delay the traffic stop. Finally, the officer's testimony that Defendant verbally consented was sufficient to establish consent, even without a signed consent form.The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant safety valve relief or calculating her sentencing guidelines. View "United States v. Veronica Gonzalez-Carmona" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to the destruction of an energy facility, use of fire to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm/ammunition by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Defendant was sentenced to 180 months in prison and over $4.8 million in restitution. Defendant's sentence included a requirement that he pay "50 percent per month of earned income available to him." However, the judgment did not define what constitutes earned income.When Defendant received a COVID-19 stimulus payment in 2021, the government moved to authorize a $1,000.87 payment from Defendant's inmate trust account. Defendant objected, claiming the money was not "earned income." Without explanation, the district court granted the government's motion and Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting the government's request to authorize the payment from Defendant's inmate trust account. The district court failed to place any findings of fact regarding the source of the money in Defendant's inmate trust account. The question is if the money in Defendant's account constitutes "substantial resources" from outside sources that would be subject to § 3664(n). The court remanded the case to the district court for further fact-finding. View "United States v. Jason Woodring" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the district court after he admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court improperly considered his need for rehabilitation in crafting the sentence, in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). He further argued that the district court abused its discretion by failing to account for his significant physical and mental health challenges in determining his sentence. Finally, he challenged the district court’s decision to impose an additional term of supervised release following the term of imprisonment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court reasoned that Defendant did not ask the district court not to impose any more supervised release. In fact, Defendant asked to remain on supervised release and pursue treatment. Further, Defendant had repeatedly violated the terms of his supervised release, continued to use illegal substances, and did not put any effort into his own rehabilitation. Thus, given the circumstances, the court discerned no abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Dewey Miller" on Justia Law

Five defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, conspiracy to transport persons to engage in prostitution, conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and conspiracy to use a communication facility to promote prostitution. The jury also found one of the five, guilty of a substantive count of sex trafficking. Defendants appealed various aspects of their convictions and sentences.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment finding that there was no reversible error. Defendants 1 and 2 argued that their convictions must be reversed because there was a variance between the conspiracy charged in the indictment and the conspiracy proved at trial. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that they joined a single ongoing conspiracy to commit sex trafficking.   Defendant 3 challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. The court held that based on the evidence a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant 3 knowingly agreed to engage in sex trafficking and did so with the knowledge that women working in her houses were subject to coercive debt.   Defendant 4 challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on a substantive count of sex trafficking. The court reasoned that the offense of benefiting from participation in a venture to “maintain” a victim of sex trafficking is a continuing offense that may occur in more than one district. The court found no clear error in the district court’s orders of restitution and forfeiture to Defendant 5. View "United States v. Pawinee Unpradit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), and 1594(a), and attempted enticement of a minor for sexual activity using a facility of interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b). Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and his conviction on numerous grounds.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied Defendant's motion to suppress and affirmed his conviction.  Defendant argued that law enforcement’s warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.  The court held that a reasonable person could believe Defendant committed or was committing a crime and the facts sufficiently establish probable cause to believe that Defendant was attempting to commit sex trafficking crimes. Defendant further argued that his indictment was insufficient because he contends his crimes cannot be based on a non-existent victim. The court held that caselaw states a defendant may commit both attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor and attempted enticement of a minor for sexual activity using a facility of interstate commerce.  Next, Defendant argued insufficient evidence supported either conviction. Here, the evidence sufficiently showed Defendant’s subjective intent to engage in a commercial sex act with someone he believed to be a minor. Moreover, the evidence showed Defendant knowingly used two facilities of interstate commerce, to try to entice a fictitious minor female to engage in illegal sexual activity and then took a substantial step toward committing the offense by driving to the meeting spot. View "United States v. Carlocito Slim" on Justia Law

After being pulled over, Defendant and his vehicle were searched, revealing a pistol and cocaine contained in various packaging materials. Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug transaction, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, an expert testified for the government that the narcotics in question were "possessed with the intent to distribute." Defendant did not object at the time.Reviewing for plain error, the Eighth Circuit determined that the district court erred in admitting the expert's testimony, but affirmed Defendant's conviction. While the expert's testimony was prohibited opinion evidence, given the other evidence supporting the jury's verdict, the error did not affect Defendant's substantial rights. The court also held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, rejecting Defendant's sufficiency challenge. View "United States v. Emanuel Cowley, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of threatening to assault and murder a federal official and two counts of mailing threatening communications. The allegations were based on Defendant's several repeated promises, verbal and written, to kill two FBI agents. The pre-sentence report ("PSR") proposed an advisory range of 140 to 175 months of imprisonment. Neither party objected to the PSR, but the government sought a sentence of at least 20 years. The court sentenced Defendant to 480 months, based on Defendant's lack of remorse, the need to protect the public, and to deter Defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct, among other things.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. A district court is not prohibited from "determining that the weight the Guidelines assigned to a particular factor was insufficient." Additionally, the sentencing court can take uncharged conduct into account. Here, the district court provided an explanation as to why the guideline calculation was insufficient to address the court's concerns. View "United States v. Clayton Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, Defendant consented to a video sentencing hearing. After reviewing the pre-sentence report, Defendant's evidence of mitigation and the relevant sentencing factors, the court sentenced Defendant to the statutory maximum term of incarceration.On appeal, Defendant claimed that the district court violated his right to counsel and his right to meaningful allocation by muting the audio portion of the recording two times during the sentencing hearing. The Eighth Circuit rejected Defendant's argument, finding that the muting did not implicate Due Process concerns. Defendant's attorney was able to argue on his behalf while the audio was muted and Defendant had subsequent opportunity to allocate.The court also determined that Defendant's sentence was not procedurally flawed or substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Joshua Braman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and its ruling to limit the cross-examination of a law enforcement witness at trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and the judgment of the district court. The court held that the district court did not err in its credibility finding.Defendant argued that the arresting Trooper lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle Defendant was involved in any criminal activity and, thus, the traffic stop was unlawful. He asserted that the district court clearly erred in its credibility finding and that the trooper’s testimony was “plainly contradicted” by the squad car videos. The court held that Defendant is correct that the video footage does not confirm the Trooper’s testimony concerning each of the three traffic violations, however, nothing in the video footage undermined that testimony.Next, Defendant argued the district court improperly limited his cross-examination of the Trooper at trial. At trial court sustained the government’s objection to the defense’s line of questioning regarding the Trooper and his DRE training, specifically about allegations that officers participating in the training program supplied drugs to young people in Minneapolis. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion to curtail the inquiry. View "United States v. Pierre Stewart" on Justia Law