Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Salvador Mendoza-Lopez appeals his sentence, arguing the district court denied him his right of allocution. Mendoza-Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a sentence of seventy months. Defendant filed motions for departure and variance, seeking a forty-month sentence. He argued he qualified for a downward departure under the Guidelines because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his prior record. At sentencing, Defendant's counsel reiterated at length his arguments for a departure and variance. The district court, in a lengthy statement from the bench, denied both motions and accepted the PSR's recommended Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. Immediately thereafter the court said: "[i]t's the Court['s] intention to sentence within that Guideline range." It then invited both Defendant's counsel, and Defendant himself to address "where within that range this Court should sentence." The court assured defense counsel it had taken into account the Guidelines' factors and would continue to do so when it imposed sentence. At his opportunity to speak, Defendant said: "I would simply like to say that I apologize, I’m sorry for having come back. I’d like you to know that I have small children in Mexico who need me to support them by working. That’s really all." The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months, stating that it was "sympathetic with the fact that the defendant has a wife and two small children that very much need him back home." Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing the district court violated his right of allocution by definitively announcing its intention to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range before inviting him to speak. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by inviting Defendant to speak with respect to where within the Guidelines range the court should sentence him. This error, however, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Plaintiff Steven Romero brought suit against Defendants Jeremy Story, Manuel Frias, and Vincent Shadd, Las Cruces, New Mexico law enforcement officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied Defendants' claim to qualified immunity in the context of summary judgment, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to excessive force, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-appellant Jerry Thomas was a prisoner serving time in an Oklahoma state prison. He brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and sought to appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claims that employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections violated his constitutional rights during a period of time when he was incarcerated at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Plaintiff had three "strikes" (as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)) because he had had three prior civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Specifically, the Court addressed whether Plaintiff should have been assessed a third strike based on the district court's 2008 dismissal of a previous 1983 action . The Court adopted the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in "Pointer v. Wilkinson" (502 F.3d 363) and assessed a third strike against Plaintiff.

Defendant-Appellant Glenn Damato appealed his 96-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He argued that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs by including as relevant conduct a drug transaction that occurred more than thirteen years prior to what he was convicted of in this case. The government argued that the old transaction was part of the "same course of conduct." Upon reivew, the Tenth Circut could not agree with the government’s argument: "the thirteen-year interval at issue far exceeds the gap between relevant conduct and the charged offense in the case law of any circuit including our own. Further, that extreme lack of temporal proximity was not mitigated by strong evidence of regularity or similarity." Nevertheless, the Court exercised its discretion to consider an alternative basis to affirm, and concluded that the prior transaction qualified as relevant conduct because it and the current conviction were part of a "common scheme or plan." With that, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Casimiro Loya-Rodriguez appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He contended the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself both at trial and at sentencing. Upon review, the Tenth circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction because he failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself at trial. But the Court remanded the case to the district court to vacate his sentence and then resentence him because he did make such a request to represent himself at sentencing.

Defendant-Appellant Jonathan McGehee was found guilty by jury of possessing with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed his conviction and sentence arguing that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop where police discovered narcotics and a firearm; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that he possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense; and (3) the district court erred by denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Plaintiff-Appellant, World Publishing Company, publisher of the "Tulsa World" newspaper, appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee the United States Department of Justice. Resolving various pretrial motions, the district court held that Tulsa World had standing, denied it discovery, and concluded that the United States Marshals Service properly withheld six booking photographs ("mug shots") requested by Tulsa World through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. On appeal, Tulsa World argued that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for summary judgment and denying it discovery so that it might better respond to that motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed its judgment in favor of the DOJ.

The issue on appeal to the Tenth circuit centered on what level of deference (if any) must be afforded to a local governmental entity's proffered plan to remedy an adjudged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973), when that proposed remedy unnecessarily conflicted with state law. The Court surmised that when such plans in effectuating their remedial purposes do not adhere as closely as possible to the contours of the governing state law, they are not eligible for the deference customarily afforded legislative plans. Consequently in this case, the Court affirmed the district court's order that rejected the Fremont County Board of Commissioners' proposed remedial plan, and held under settled Supreme Court precedent that strongly favors single-member districts in court-ordered plans, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedial plan solely consisting of single-member districts.

Two appeals arose out of a lawsuit filed against New Mexico state officials that sought declaratory and injunctive relief to redress alleged violations of New Mexico’s obligations under Sections 7 and 5 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq. The Section 7 claim was resolved on summary judgment, with the district court concluding that the Defendant officials responsible for overseeing New Mexico’s Human Services Department (HSD) violated the NVRA by failing to provide voter registration forms to those applicants for public assistance who left the Section 7-mandated declination form blank. The Section 5 claim, which alleged that New Mexico’s motor vehicle authority offices failed to provide necessary voter registration services, was resolved by written settlement agreement. Although two of the settling agencies reimbursed Plaintiffs for a portion of the attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiffs incurred in litigating the Section 5 claim, the New Mexico Secretary of State refused to contribute. Plaintiffs subsequently sought and were granted attorneys' fees and expenses related to the Section 5 claim against the Secretary of State. In Appeal No. 11-2063, Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Section 7 claim. In Appeal No. 11-2084, the Secretary of State appealed the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and expenses arising out of the Section 5 claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects.

A confidential informant purchased controlled substances from Defendant Willie West in controlled buys. Some of these purchases occurred at Defendant's apartment in Lawrence, Kansas, which was within 1000 feet of Holcom Park. A grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of possessing marijuana within 1000 feet of a public playground with an intent to distribute, and one count of maintaining a place within 1000 feet of a public playground for the purpose of distributing marijuana. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Holcom Park was a statutory "playground" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. secs. 841(a) and 860(a). At the close of the Government's case, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to establish that Holcom Park was a "playground." The district court denied Defendant's motion. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. In denying Defendant's subsequent motion for a new trial, the district court referenced the Government's argument that "[e]ven if the jury found the [jungle gyms] constituted one apparatus, . . . the . . .baseball diamonds, volleyball courts, and Holcom’s other amenities are each apparatus intended for the recreation of children." Defendant appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.