Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

While serving a sentence of 148 months for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, Defendant moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines. Defendant sought a sentence twenty-nine percent below the bottom of his amended guideline range of 168 to 210 months. The district court granted a reduction approximately twenty percent below the amended guideline range to comply with U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, the Sentencing Commission's policy statement governing the sentence reduction process. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 1B1.10 was contrary to the Sentencing Reform Act and unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not exceed its statutory authority by limiting sentence reductions below the bottom of the amended guideline range to defendants who had provided substantial assistance to authorities; and (2) the policy statement was not an unconstitutional violation of the nondelegation doctrine or separation of powers principles.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing five or more grams of crack cocaine. The offense occurred on October 6, 2009. On August 3, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which eliminated the five-year minimum sentence for offenses involving more than five grams of cocaine, into law. On November 22, 2010, the district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months' imprisonment, the applicable mandatory minimum for the offense at the time Defendant committed the offense. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On June 12, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the FSA applies retroactively to defendants who committed a crack cocaine crime before August 3, 2010 but were not sentenced until after that date. The Eighth Circuit subsequently granted Defendant's petition for rehearing, vacated Defendant's sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.

A grand jury indicted Defendant for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and for an immigration violation. Defendant conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 108 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless traffic stop, arguing that deputies lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, and the district court's admission of the evidence resulting from the traffic stop was proper.

The Governor and Attorney General of South Dakota, along with two intervening crisis pregnancy centers and two of their personnel appealed the district court's permanent injunction barring enforcement of a South Dakota statute requiring the disclosure to patients seeking abortions of an "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide" and the underlying grant of summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and its medical director Dr. Carol Ball. The district court found that this advisory would unduly burden abortion rights and would violate physicians' First Amendment right to be free from compelled speech. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that on its face, the suicide advisory presented neither an undue burden on abortion rights nor a violation of physicians' free speech rights.

A warrant search of Defendant's vehicle and computer yielded a video of Defendant positioning W.D., a twelve-year-old girl, while he filmed her nude body, and CDs containing images of child pornography. After Defendant was convicted in state court of raping W.D.'s sister, federal prosecutors charged him with single counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, W.D., and possession of child pornography. A jury convicted him of both counts, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. On remand, a jury again convicted Defendant of both counts. Defendant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor and his sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the jury reasonably found the images Defendant produced satisfied the statutory standard - visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct; and (2) the district court did not err in imposing Defendant's sentence.

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months' imprisonment, the applicable mandatory minimum because it found Defendant had a prior felony drug conviction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) there was no Speedy Trial Act violation in this case; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Defendant's proposed jury instruction, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction; (3) Defendant's sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment, because, contrary to Defendant's argument that the existence of a prior conviction was a factual determination that should have been presented to a jury, the Court has found expressly constitutional under the Sixth Amendment the imposition of increased mandatory minimum sentences on the basis of judge-found facts.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a competency hearing and evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to 72 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a competence determination and his sentence. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit reversible error in refusing to order a competency hearing; (2) did not commit procedural errors at sentencing; (3) did not err in denying Defendant a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility; and (4) did not improperly increase Defendant's sentence for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation.

Defendant appealed the sentence he received after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a traditional upward departure based upon Defendant's understated criminal history and pattern of recidivism. Defendant challenged his sentence as relying upon unsupported factual assertions surrounding his present offense and purportedly inaccurate and object-to factual assertions from narratives in the presentence investigation report describing his prior offenses. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not rely upon impermissible evidence, reach any clearly erroneous factual determinations, abuse its discretion in imposing an upward departure, or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.

Before his latest conviction for unlawful possession of a short shotgun, Defendant had been convicted of attempted robbery, robbery, and possession of a short shotgun. The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of fifteen years if a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm has "three previous convictions" for a "violent felony." At sentencing, the district court found that all Defendant's prior convictions were violent felonies. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant then moved to vacate his sentence, questioning whether his previous conviction for possession of a short shotgun was a violent felony. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's possession of a short shotgun was a violent felony because possession of a short shotgun presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, as it is roughly similar to the listed offenses within the ACCA, both in kind as well as the degree of risk for harm posed.

Defendant Patrick Pierce was charged with and pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Defendant later filed 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for habeas corpus relief. One of the claims was for ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing resulting in an incorrectly calculated Guidelines range. The district court granted Defendant habeas corpus relief on that basis. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the precedent set forth by King v. United States in refusing to find ineffective assistance for the same error, Defendant's trial counsel was not unconstitutionally ineffective. Remanded.