Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The sole issue presented to the Tenth Circuit in this appeal stemmed on whether the bankruptcy trustee could avoid an entire annual transfer or only a portion exceeding 15% a restricted debtor's gross annual income to a religious or charitable organization. The bankruptcy court and Bankruptcy Court of Appeals (BAP) said circumstances here only permitted the trustee to avoid the portion of the transfer exceeding 15%. Because that result was contrary to the plain language of the statute, the Tenth Circuit reversed. View "Wadsworth v. The Word of Life Center" on Justia Law

Defendant Vernon Hill was convicted for bank robbery. He appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial. The government changed its theory about defendant's two brother's involvement in the robbery; the government prosecuted defendant and Stanley Hill as the two masked men who committed the robbery. The jury convicted defendant but could not agree on Stanley. Stanley was later retried and convicted. Several months after the trial, the government obtained cell-phone data and other evidence, and charged defendant and DeJuan Hill with conspiring to commit other robberies. In presenting this new case to a grand jury, an FBI agent called to testify revealed that the government's understanding of the bank robbery had changed, and that Stanley was not one of the robbers but the getaway car driver- the two that committed the robbery were defendant and DeJuan. Defendant then moved to set aside his prior conviction based on the FBI agent's testimony. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with defendant's contention that he was entitled to a new trial because the testimony was wrong constituted, and that the cell phone data was new, exculpatory evidence. The Court concluded that the FBI agent's admission that the two-robbers theory was wrong was not admissible evidence, and nothing else defendant described in his appeal was newly discovered evidence. As such, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jeremiah Jackson appealed his conviction and sentence for the deaths of two women accidentally killed while defendant was fleeing police following a bank robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the proper charge against him should have been one count of bank robbery resulting in death, and that the district court erred: (1) in denying his post-trial motion to vacate one of the two remaining counts as multiplicitous because sentencing on both violated double jeopardy; (2) in denying a motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor commented on defendant's silence and failure to testify; and (3) in failing to instruct that a section 2113(e) conviction required a mens rea element. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and remanded the case to the district court to vacate the sentence for resentencing. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Basnett, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment (with 2 years of supervised release). He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the sentence was too long. When the trial court imposed the sentence, it relied on guidelines governing possession of at least eight firearms and possession of firearms in connection with a separate felony. On appeal, the issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court had enough evidence to reasonably infer defendant possessed: (1) eight or more guns (other than antiques or those owned solely for hunting or collecting); and (2) at least one gun in connection with a separate felony. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Court concluded that the government had sufficient evidence to draw these inferences. View "United States v. Basnett" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicki Dillard Crowe was convicted by a jury on eight counts of mail fraud, and eight counts of wire fraud for her participation in a mortgage fraud scheme. The district court sentenced defendant to sixty months' imprisonment and was ordered her to make restitution. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss associated with her crimes for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b), and in denying her motion for new trial, which alleged ineffective assistance on the part of her trial counsel. Defendant's challenge to the district court's calculation of loss raised an issue of first impression for the Tenth Circuit: whether the concept of reasonable foreseeability applied to a district court’s calculation of the "credits against loss" under 2B1.1(b). The Court adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning in "United States v. Turk," (626 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 2010)), and held that the concept of reasonable foreseeability applies only to a district court's calculation of "actual loss" under 2B1.1(b), and not to its calculation of the "credits against loss." The Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Crowe" on Justia Law

Petitioner Benjamin Cole was convicted of one count of first degree murder of a child (his nine-month-old daughter), for which he was sentenced to death. He appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the denial of petitioner's request for habeas relief. View "Cole v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Defendant Philbert Rentz fired a single gunshot that wounded one victim and killed another. He was charged with two separate counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant moved to dismiss the second count. The district court granted his motion, holding that the applicable statute under which defendant was charged could not support multiple charges arising from a single use of a firearm. The Government appealed the pre-trial dismissal of the second count. Finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the second count, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Rentz" on Justia Law

Defendant Germain Harris was convicted on federal weapons and drugs charges stemming from the arrest and conviction of Alonzo Johnson for the contract killing of a Tulsa businessman. Harris challenged his convictions, arguing the district court should have suppressed evidence found at his auto shop or granted his motion for a new trial. Specifically, Harris argued the warrant was constitutionally defective on its fact, and as such, the subsequent search of his shop by law enforcement was a violation of his rights. After careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded the warrant was not defective, and that the district court did not err in denying his motion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Harris' conviction. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant Eni Oyegoke-Eniola challenged his sentence following his guilty plea to charges of mail fraud, and making a false statement on an immigration document. He raised four errors on appeal: (1) that the district court improperly imposed enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) that Defendant's statements made under an immunity agreement should have been stricken from the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR); (3) that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence; and (4) that the court failed to rule on some of Defendant's objections to the PSR. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's first claim was meritorious with respect to two enhancements and therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Oyegoke-Eniola" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Reydecel Chavez, a Mexican native, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and reentry of a removed alien. He appealed the district court's order permitting the government to involuntarily medicate him pursuant to "United States v. Sell," (539 U.S. 166 (2003)), in order to make him competent to stand trial. Finding that the government did not satisfy all of the "Sell" requirements, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law