United States v. Cortez Crumble, 965 F.3d 642

Cortez Crumble was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) for being a felon in possession of ammunition arising from a bar shooting captured on the bar’s surveillance video.
The Government introduced the full surveillance video and still-frame photos prepared by a forensic video analyst to show Crumble possessing and firing a firearm; Crumble objected to the photos as improperly disclosed and manipulated.
The jury convicted Crumble. At sentencing the court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 41–51 months (Offense Level 18, CHC IV) but imposed a 63‑month sentence.
On appeal Crumble raised three principal challenges: (1) a Rehaif-based plain-error claim that the jury was not instructed that he must know his felon status; (2) a Rule 16 disclosure claim that the Government belatedly produced the still photos that amounted to expert or new evidence; and (3) that his 63‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it found Crumble could not show Rehaif error affected substantial rights, upheld the district court’s admission of the photos (no Rule 16 abuse), and rejected the substantive‑reasonableness challenge to the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rehaif/plain‑error (knowledge of felon status)	Jury lacked instruction that Crumble must know he belonged to category barred from possessing firearms; conviction should be reversed under Rehaif.	Government conceded error was plain but argued Crumble cannot show the error affected substantial rights because of his prior related convictions and prison term.	Affirmed — Crumble failed to show a reasonable probability the outcome would differ; prior conviction and 60‑month sentence undermined prejudice.
Rule 16 / admission of still photos from surveillance video	Photos were late, constituted expert/new evidence or manipulated frames, and should have been excluded under Rule 16.	Government produced the full video timely; the analyst’s preparation of stills was routine and did not create new evidence; defense could cross‑examine the analyst.	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; full video was sufficient disclosure and no evidence of manipulation.
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	63 months is excessive; district court overemphasized danger of offense and prior record.	District court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors, noting seriousness, prior firearm conviction, and lack of adequate deterrence from prior sentence.	Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable given district court’s considered § 3553(a) analysis.

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (Government must prove defendant knew possession and knew status barring possession)
United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2019) (plain‑error standard applied to Rehaif claims)
United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2019) (prior imprisonment may defeat Rehaif‑prejudice showing)
United States v. Benamor, 937 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2019) (prior similar convictions undermine Rehaif prejudice)
United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for Rule 16 exclusion decisions)
United States v. McCourt, 468 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2006) (a video comprises sequential still images)
United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review considers totality and variance from Guidelines)
United States v. Whitlow, 815 F.3d 430 (8th Cir. 2016) (narrow review of substantive reasonableness; reversal is unusual)
United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts may assign greater weight to some § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2007) (district courts may consider factors already accounted for in Guidelines)