Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Linda Diaz was convicted of knowingly leaving the scene of a car accident where she hit and killed a pedestrian. The accident occurred on the Pojoajue Pueblo Indian reservation. She was charged with committing a crime in Indian Country under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1152. On appeal, among other issues, Defendant contended the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the crime because the government failed to prove that the victim was not an Indian, a jurisdictional requirement under section 1152. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the government met its burden of proof. The testimony of the victim’s father provided enough evidence for a jury to conclude the victim was not an Indian for purposes of the statute. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in its rulings on various other evidentiary and trial issues.

This case was about the government’s repeated efforts to remove Petitioner Kairi Abha Shepherd from the United States on the ground she is a criminal alien. In the initial removal proceeding, the government did not effectively contest Petitioner's claim to automatic citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), and the Immigration Judge (IJ) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The next day, the government initiated a new removal proceeding, explaining to the same IJ that it had made a mistake and now realized that Petitioner was too old to qualify under the CCA for citizenship. The IJ eventually decided that his initial ruling precluded the government from relitigating Petitioner's citizenship or alienage status, and he terminated the proceeding. The government successfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which held that collateral estoppel did not apply and remanded to the IJ, who ordered removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit for review. Upon review, the Court found that Petitioner's alien status precluded the Court's jurisdiction: "[Petitioner's] issue preclusion argument based on the IJ’s first decision is unavailing because administrative collateral estoppel does not apply to our sec. 1252(b)(5) analysis." Accordingly, the Court dismissed her petition for review.

Defendant-Appellant Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce, and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Defendant was to be delivered upon release to an immigration official for deportation. On appeal, he argued that 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(5)(a) was unconstitutional and that the district court committed various sentencing errors in applying the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the applicable statute constitutional, and that the district court committed no errors in arriving at Defendant's sentence.

Before a New Mexico law making it easier for identity theft victims to expunge negative information from their credit reports took effect, the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) brought a pre-enforcement challenge, contending that the law was preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The CDIA sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the New Mexico Attorney General, who with aggrieved consumers, had the authority to enforce the law through a civil lawsuit. Upon review, the federal district court concluded that equitable relief against the Attorney General would not adequately redress CDIA's injuries, the district court dismissed the case as non-justiciable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and vacated the district court's judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Bader appealed his convictions of distribution of human growth hormone (HGH), conspiracy to knowingly facilitate and knowingly facilitating the sale of HGH brought into the United States contrary to law, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (testosterone cypionate). He asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse his convictions or, at a minimum, to grant him a new trial. Defendant also challenged the district court's forfeiture order requiring him to remit the $4.8 million in proceeds that he allegedly derived from his unlawful activity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for distribution of HGH and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute testosterone cypionate, but reversed based upon instructional error his convictions for knowingly facilitating the sale of HGH imported into the United States contrary to law, and conspiring to do so. Further, in light of the Court's reversals, it concluded that the forfeiture judgment could not rest on its current statutory basis, but the Court left it to the district court in the first instance the task of determining the precise amount (if any) of the forfeiture judgment authorized by the remaining, upheld convictions.

Petitioner-Appellant Jesus Hector Palma-Salazar was indicted in 1995 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he was arrested in Mexico in 2002. After he was extradited to the United States pursuant to an extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico, Petitioner pled guilty and began serving his sentence. In 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his confinement at the Administrative Maximum Prison in Florence, Colorado (ADX). He alleged his confinement at ADX violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and also the extradition treaty. The district court denied his petition. It concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider his Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims because they were challenges to the conditions of his confinement and must, therefore, be brought under "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics," (403 U.S. 388 (1971)). It also concluded Petitioner's confinement at ADX did not violate the extradition treaty. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion.

Defendant-Appellant Aaron Cope was convicted of one count of operating a common carrier (commercial airplane) under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction based on improper venue, insufficiency of the evidence, and improper reliance on federal regulations. In 2009, Defendant was the copilot and first officer of a commercial flight from Austin, Texas to Denver, Colorado. Robert Obodzinski was the captain. Following the flight to Austin, Mr. Obodzinski invited the crew to dinner, but Defendant declined, stating that he did not feel well. Mr. Obodzinski did not see Defendant again until the next morning in the hotel lobby. Mr. Obodzinski testified that “[Mr. Cope] had a little bit of a puffy face, and his eyes were a little red, and I assumed that since he said the night before he wasn’t feeling well, that he was probably coming down with a cold.” The pilots flew from Austin to Denver that morning without incident. While in the cockpit, Mr. Obodzinski detected occasional hints of the smell of alcohol. When they arrived in Denver, Mr. Obodzinski leaned over Defendant and “took a big whiff,” concluding that the smell of alcohol was coming from Defendant Mr. Obodzinski contacted dispatch to delay the next leg of their flight, and contacted the airline's human resources officer. Defendant would later be indicted by the federal grand jury in Colorado. After a two-day bench trial, the district court convicted Mr. Cope and sentenced him to a below-guidelines sentence of six months in prison and two years of supervised release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court had sufficient evidence to find that Defendant was “under the influence of alcohol,” even if the district court relied on the FAA regulations or Republic Airways'[Defendant's employer] company policy, such reliance would have been harmless error.

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Robert Newton alleged Major John R. Teter and Lieutenant Colonel Wayne E. Lee of the Utah Air National Guard violated his due process rights when they suspended and subsequently withdrew his Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) certificate, and when they suspended his employment as an Air Traffic Control Supervisor at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on Plaintiff's due process claim regarding the suspension of his employment. It denied summary judgment on Plaintiff's due process claim regarding the withdrawal of his ATCS certificate, holding this claim was not barred by qualified immunity or by intramilitary immunity under the "Feres" doctrine. In this interlocutory appeal, Defendants challenged the denial of qualified immunity and intramilitary immunity on Plaintiff's ATCS certificate claim. Plaintiff cross-appealed the grant of summary judgment on his employment claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff's ATCS certificate was not barred by the "Feres" doctrine, and that the Court had no jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to defendants. The Court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff's cross-appeal.

Petitioner Steven Ray Thacker pled guilty in Oklahoma state court to charges of first-degree malice aforethought murder, kidnapping, and first-degree rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the state trial court sentenced Petitioner to death for the murder conviction. Petitioner's death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal, and his requests for state post-conviction relief were denied. Petitioner then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, but was denied relief by the district court. He then filed a notice of appeal and the district court granted him a certificate of appealability on four issues. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner was not entitled to relief and affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief.

In three consolidated cases, Plaintiffs-Appellants Omar Rezaq, Mohammed Saleh, Ibrahim Elgabrowny, and El-Sayyid Nosair appealed the district court's grants of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and named officials in brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(4), 1346, 2201, and 2202. All three were convicted of terrorism-related offenses. Rezaq's action was filed in 2007; the action by Saleh, Elgabrowny, and Nosair filed in 2008. Plaintiffs contended that they had a liberty interest in avoiding transfer without due process to the Administrative Maximum Prison (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, where they were formerly housed. In separate orders, the district court rejected their arguments and found that Plaintiffs lacked a cognizable liberty interest in avoiding confinement at ADX. While the BOP agreed with this reasoning, it also contended that all of Plaintiffs' claims became moot when they were transferred to other prisons. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that these cases were not moot and affirmed the district court's judgments on the merits.