Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Hoping to remain in the United States from her native Jamaica, Defendant-Appellant Shannakay Hunter married a United States citizen. The government regarded the marriage as a sham and charged defendant with conspiracy and participation in a fraudulent marriage. A jury found her guilty on both charges. Defendant appealed, arguing that: (1) the district court should have required proof that defendant had married solely to evade the immigration laws; (2) the evidence of guilt was insufficient; (3) the marriage was “void” under state law; (4) the application of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c) resulted in a denial of equal protection, and (5) section 1325(c) is overbroad. Rejecting each argument, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit answered the question posed by the issue on appeal in this case with a "yes:" whether a police officer who observed a handgun tucked in the waistband of a convenience store employee had reasonable suspicion that the employee was unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon in violation of federal law, and therefore justified a "stop-and-frisk." View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma jury convicted Bigler Jobe "Bud" Stouffer of first degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. He was sentenced to death for the murder and to life imprisonment for the shooting. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief. Stouffer sought habeas relief in federal court to challenge his conviction and sentence on nine grounds. The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on four. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief on three of the four grounds. The Court reversed on the ground of jury tampering, and remanded the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. View "Stouffer v. Workman" on Justia Law

An immigration judge found petitioner Nadia Maatougui removable for marriage fraud in 2004. Petitioner then asylum and four other forms of relief from removal. The Immigration Judge denied the requests, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioner claimed on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the IJ and BIA erred in denying her a hardship waiver and cancellation of removal based on their credibility determinations and the weight they gave the evidence in her case. Under case law, the Tenth Circuit determined it did not have jurisdiction to overturn their credibility determinations or evidence weighing, and thus could not grant relief on that claim. Petitioner also claimed that changed conditions in her native Morocco and the ineffective assistance of her prior counsel at a hearing in 2004 merited reopening her case. The Tenth Circuit concluded petitioner failed to present new, material, previously unavailable evidence that justified reopening her case. View "Maatougui v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Daud Anwar pled guilty to making false threats to destroy buildings. The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed only the four-level sentence enhancement he received under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for causing a “substantial disruption” to public “functions or services.” Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Anwar" on Justia Law

Defendant Officer Patricia Yazzie appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity in this case that alleged wrongful arrest and imprisonment (Count I) and illegal seizure of property (Count II). This case was an interlocutory appeal following the district court's ruling in an action brought by Spero Panagoulakos pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. 1343. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because "no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after [a] traffic stop." View "Panagoulakos v. Yazzie, et al" on Justia Law

Two prison guards had sexual intercourse with Plaintiff-Appellant Stacey Graham while she was in solitary confinement at the Logan County Jail in Oklahoma. The guards confessed and were fired immediately. Plaintiff sought damages in a civil-rights complaint against the two guards and the county sheriff. She alleged a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The federal district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the sexual acts were consensual. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision: "[a]lthough we recognize a need to examine consent carefully in the prison context, this case does not present a factual issue with regard to Ms. Graham's consent." View "Graham v. Sheriff of Logan County, et al" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on a matter of state campaign finance regulations in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in "Citizens United v. FEC," (558 U.S. 310 (2010)). Before "Citizens United" in 2010, New Mexico had introduced a new state campaign finance law that imposed a host of contribution and other limitations on political parties, political action committees, and donors to such entities. As pertains to this case, the state limited the amount an individual may contribute to a political committee. Potential donors, political parties, and political committees mounted an as-applied challenge to the law in federal district court, contending several of its provisions violated the First Amendment. The district court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the enforcement of two provisions: (1) limits on contributions to political committees for use in federal campaigns, and (2) limits on contributions to political committees that are to be used for independent expenditures. New Mexico appealed the latter ruling, contending that the limit on contributions furthers the state’s compelling interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in campaign spending. After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was correct that the challenged provision could not be reconciled with Citizens United and, as a result, did not err in entering a preliminary injunction. View "Republican Party of New Mexico, et al v. King, et al" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Nathan Archuleta of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting a gang expert’s testimony under the federal Rules of Evidence. Of the three evidentiary rules he cited, only Rule 403 was raised by defendant at trial. As a result, the Tenth Circuit's review of his arguments pertaining to Rule 702 and Rule 704(b) were limited to plain error review. Finding no error as to all three rules, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Archuleta" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven Carmichael Warren pled guilty to a second armed bank robbery, and the district court imposed a sentence of 25 years. Appellant challenged the procedural reasonableness of that sentence, arguing the factual accuracy of statements in the presentence report and that the district court erred by increasing his sentence after assuming the truth of those disputed statements. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed appellant's conviction. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law