Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Pro se prisoner Defendant Dominic Moya appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. He sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit. Defendant was indicted in 2009 by a federal grand jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; for possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute; and for carrying the firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. Defendant argued on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the plea agreement he accepted. Finding that no reasonable jurist could debate the district court's dismissal of his motion, the Tenth Circuit found Defendant failed to allege facts to support a finding that he was prejudiced by his attorney's purported ineffectiveness.

Defendants William Pickard and Clyde Apperson were federal prisoners who sought post-conviction relief. They both sought review of the district court's decision to decline to rule on a motion to unseal documents for use during their postconviction proceedings. The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because the underlying proceedings were before the court on appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded it too lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final order.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Joe Viera filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence he received for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution and use of a communication facility to facilitate the distribution of the methamphetamine. Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal despite Defendant’s specific instructions to do so (the appeal issue). The district court denied COA as to other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant appealed the appeal issue and requested a COA on several other issues. Finding that many of the issues raised in his appeal to the Tenth Circuit were raised for the first time, and finding that the evidence for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was insufficient to support an appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Defendant's case the denial of the COA.

Defendant-Appellant Shannon Keith Hunt was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for violating the conditions of his supervised release. On appeal, he argued the district court failed to apply 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) to give him credit for prison time served on two prior sentences for revocation of his supervised release. Taken together, Defendant claimed these sentences exceed the maximum amount of supervised release authorized for his original offense, which federal law prohibits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and held that the district court was not required to credit Defendant for his previous terms of revocation imprisonment. The court was only required to consider Defendant's previous revocation imprisonment when setting a new term of supervised release.

Plaintiff-Appellee Jose Antonio-Agusta appealed a district court’s application of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)'s sixteen-level sentence enhancement in calculating his advisory Guidelines range. He argued the district court erred in relying on the indictment underlying his prior Arizona convictions to conclude those convictions constitute felony crimes of violence, warranting the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err because the indictment was incorporated by reference in the judgment and is therefore reliable evidence of the elements of Plaintiff's prior convictions. Furthermore, the indictment, plea agreement, and judgment revealed Plaintiff was convicted under parts of Arizona's aggravated assault statutes that constitute crimes of violence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court.

Defendant-Appellant Andre Haymond was convicted of one count of possession or attempted possession of child pornography after federal agents discovered Defendant had downloaded the child pornography from a filesharing website. The government based its case at trial on seven images found after the FBI's investigation. Before trial, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence and statements obtained during the search of his home and the related forensic search of his computer on the grounds that the underlying search warrant was issued without probable cause. Following trial, Defendant moved for acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. Ultimately Defendant was sentenced to thirty-eight months in prison and ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction. Finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict against him, and that alleged procedural errors at trial were harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

In 1997, environmental and recreational groups began seeking to limit the daily number of snowmobiles permitted in Wyoming national parks. In several consolidated cases, Petitioners the State of Wyoming and Park County, Wyoming filed petitions for review of agency action, challenging the 2009 rules governing snowmobile use in the parks. The district court dismissed the petitions for review, holding Petitioners lacked standing to pursue their claims. Snowmobile proponents filed suit in a Wyoming district court to challenge a 2001 National Park Service (NPS) rule limiting snowmobiles in the parks. That suit was settled, but ultimately the resolution of the suit brought the promulgation of another rule (the 2003 rule) that set limits on snowmobiles allowed in the parks. A Washington, D.C. district court invalidated the 2003 rule and reinstated the 2001 rule. Another lawsuit was filed in Wyoming district court, the result of which invalidated the D.C. court's ruling. NPS then promulgated a series of rules which contained "sunset clauses" set to expire at end of each subsequent winter season. "Unsuprisingly," the proponents and opponents filed simultaneous challenges in both Wyoming and D.C. to challenge the rules. While the two courts fought on jurisdiction, NPS formulated another new rule (2009 rule). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioners' argument was moot: "Even if [the Court] were to conclude Petitioners had standing to challenge the procedure and analysis used to adopt the 2009 rule, and if the district court then found NPS had violated NEPA or the APA in promulgating that rule, [the Court's] decision would still have no effect. [The Court] reach[ed] this conclusion because the analytical and procedural aspects of the 2009 rule have been superseded by the new analysis and procedure underlying the new one-year rule. Because the procedural challenge in this case[was] to the analysis underlying the 2009 temporary rule and that analysis has been redone, [the Court held] that the procedural challenge to the 2009 temporary rule [was] moot."

Appellant Michael McGaughy pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months' imprisonment. Months later, Appellant filed a "2255" motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and asked for resentencing. The district court conferred informally with the parties, and the government agreed to re-sentencing. At re-sentencing, the district court again sentenced Appellant to 46 months' imprisonment, and dismissed the 2255 motion as moot. Appellant then filed another motion to correct sentence under both Rule 35(a) and 2255, this time arguing that at re-sentencing the government presented materially false information regarding his efforts to cooperate with the government before pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the re-sentencing raised three related issues: (1) whether the court retained jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant under 2255 because it never granted the petition (instead dismissing it as moot after re-sentencing); (2) whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on Appellant's Rule 35(a) claim after the Rule’s 14-day time limit lapsed; (3) whether the district court properly denied Appellant's second 2255 claim. The Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant, but that his challenge to his re-sentencing was untimely because Rule 35’s 14-day time limitation is jurisdictional. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's 2255 claim, vacated the denial of his Rule 35(a) claim and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss the Rule 35(a) claim for lack of jurisdiction.

A New Mexico jury convicted former prison guard Defendant-Appellant John Gould of two counts of depriving an inmate of his rights under color of law, and two counts of filing a false report. The convictions arose out of Defendant's use of excessive force against two inmates in two different detention centers and his filing of false reports to cover the incidents up. On appeal, Defendant sought reversal of all the charges against him, arguing that the delay between his conviction and the entry of the final judgment violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence. Finding no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights, and finding that if there was an error in excluding the evidence, it was harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (MCN) sued the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC), three commissioners and the Oklahoma Attorney General (collectively, State), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on numerous claims challenging three Oklahoma statutes that tax and regulate the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products as a violative of federal law and tribal sovereignty. The OTC and the Attorney General brought motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed MCN's claims against all Defendant's based on the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, or alternatively, for failing to state a claim under Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Tenth Circuit found that the Eleventh Amendment did not preclude MCN's suit, but that in its complaint, the Nation failed to state a claim.