Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Michael Lee Wilson was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) ordered dismissal of his robbery conviction but affirmed his murder conviction and death sentence. Defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, but the district court denied his application. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, but vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. After holding the evidentiary hearing, the district court ruled that Defendant had failed to establish that his trial counsel had performed deficiently or that counsel's alleged failures had affected the outcome of the penalty phase, and it denied the writ. The district court granted Defendant a certificate of appealability (COA) on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and Defendant appealed. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing before the district court, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendant did not show that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies in his counsel's performance at trial. The Court therefore affirmed the denial of Defendant's habeas application. View "Wilson v. Workman" on Justia Law

Defendant Paul Everett Rich, III, pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Because he had been convicted of three predicate offenses, he qualified for enhanced punishment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 180 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentencing enhancement claiming: (1) his juvenile adjudication was "dismissed" by Oklahoma courts and should not have been counted as a prior conviction under the ACCA; and (2) the ACCA violated substantive due process by considering these older, juvenile adjudications. Disagreeing with Defendant's arguments on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his sentence enhancement. View "United State v. Rich" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Roger Schanzenbach owned several properties in the town of Opal on which he intended to install mobile manufactured homes. He applied for permits with town authorities. The town council issued several building permits to Plaintiff but shortly thereafter enacted an ordinance that included a provision banning the installation of any manufactured home that was older than 10 years at the time of the relevant permit application (the 10-Year Rule). When the permits were about to lapse and Plaintiff requested an extension, the town council denied his request. It also rejected his applications for new permits because the proposed houses were more than 10 years old. Plaintiff then sued the town and town council asserting that the 10-Year Rule was preempted by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 as well as a variety of constitutional claims. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised claims based on preemption, equal protection, and substantive due process. Upon review, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on these claims. The 10-Year Rule was not preempted and the rule was sufficiently rational to survive an equal-protection or substantive-due-process challenge. View "Schanzenbach v. Town of Opal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Roger Schanzenbach owned several properties in the town of LaBarge on which he intended to install mobile manufactured homes. He applied for permits with town authorities. The town council initially granted him a building permit for one property but revoked it about two weeks later and then enacted an ordinance that included a provision banning the installation of any manufactured home older than 10 years at the time of the relevant permit application (the 10-Year Rule). Both of Plaintiff's homes were more than 10 years old. The town council denied Plaintiff's applications for a building permit, a variance, and a conditional-use permit to enable him to install the homes despite the 10-Year Rule. Plaintiff thereafter sued, arguing a variety of constitutional claims as well as a claim that the 10-Year Rule was preempted by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised issues regarding the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, procedural due process, preemption, municipal authority to enact the 10-Year Rule, and attorney fees. Upon review, the Court held that the takings claim was unripe, the due-process claim failed because Plaintiff did not have a protected property interest, the 10-Year Rule was not preempted, the town had authority to enact the rule, and the attorney-fee issue was moot. View "Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Allstate Sweeping, LLC (Allstate) is owned and operated by two white women: Martha Krueger and Barbara Hollis. In January 2006 it began performing pressure-washing services at Denver International Airport (DIA) under a contract with the City and County of Denver (Denver). Although the contract term was through July 2008, it was terminated by Denver July, 2007. Defendant Calvin Black, a contract-compliance technician at DIA, was assigned to monitor Allstate’s contract. Black is an African-American male. Allstate claimed that it was subjected to gender- and race-based discrimination and to retaliation for its complaints of discrimination. It filed suit in the federal district court in Colorado against Denver and four DIA employees, including Black, claiming violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (Title VI), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants except Black, holding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether Black was motivated by racial and gender bias and whether Black created a hostile work environment in such a way as to make plaintiff’s contract "unprofitable and its owners miserable." It did not address Allstate’s retaliation claim. Black appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment, contending that he was entitled to qualified immunity and that the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the denial under the collateral-order doctrine. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s determinations because such sufficiency determinations are not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. The Court did, however, have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the claim that Black made Allstate’s owners "miserable" and to review the sufficiency of the evidence of the retaliation claim (which the district court did not consider). The Court reversed the denial of summary judgment on those claims. View "Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Black" on Justia Law

A Wyoming Highway Patrol trooper stopped Defendant Lee Vang Lor for speeding in 2007. After gaining consent to search the vehicle, the trooper found methamphetamine. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy. The district court sentenced him to 121 months' imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion. Defendant then filed a pro se petition to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 on the basis of newly discovered evidence: that the Wyoming Highway Patrol terminated the trooper who stopped Defendant because the trooper called in a false dispatch report after Defendant’s arrest but before his suppression hearing. Defendant argued this evidence would have undermined the trooper's testimony at Defendant's suppression hearing and that he was therefore entitled to a new hearing. The district court denied Defendant's 2255 petition. Defendant subsequently appealed. "A defendant is not deprived of a full and fair opportunity to litigate simply because he does not discover all potentially relevant evidence until after his suppression hearing. . . . Absent ineffective assistance of counsel or government concealment, a defendant cannot claim that the mere existence of undiscovered material evidence deprived him of an opportunity to litigate his claim." Finding no error in the district court's order, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lor" on Justia Law

Petitioner Charlene Burnett filed this action against James H. Woodall, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and fifty unnamed individuals. The complaint asserted violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (USCPA), and other related claims arising out of the foreclosure of her home. The district court dismissed Petitioner's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and she appealed that decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court: "We will not review an issue in the absence of reasoned arguments advanced by the appellant as to the grounds for its appeal." View "Burnett v. Mortgage Electronic, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick Merrill Brody was convicted, after a jury trial, of willful failure to file a tax return in 2001. He was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment and filed this appeal to challenge both his conviction and sentence. Primary among the arguments Defendant raised on appeal was the insufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial and that the trial court erred in calculating his sentence. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the sentence the trial court correctly calculated, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Brody" on Justia Law

Defendant Joey Ruby was on supervised release following a conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun. One of the conditions of his supervised release was that Ruby not commit any other crimes. He was unable to adhere to that condition, and was convicted of third-degree assault in Colorado state court. As a result, the district court revoked Defendant's release and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentence on the grounds that the district court erred in considering hearsay testimony at sentencing from three witnesses to the assault. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in considering the testimony, the Court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ruby" on Justia Law

Defendant Derrick Reuben Smith was convicted by a jury on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in relation to real estate mortgages. The district court declared a mistrial as to four other counts on which the jury could not reach a verdict, and later dismissed these counts without prejudice. At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory sentencing range of thirty-seven to forty-six months' imprisonment. The court then sentenced Defendant to forty months' imprisonment and ordered payment of restitution. On appeal, Defendant objected to the district court’s dismissal of the mistried counts without, rather than with, prejudice. He also raised two challenges to the district court's calculation of actual loss in its determination of the applicable sentencing range. Finding no error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law