Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jordan Halliday challenged his sentence for criminal contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury. The sentencing guideline provision for "contempt" requires the district court to "apply the most analogous offense guideline." The district court in this case applied the guideline for "obstruction of justice." Defendant argued the district court should have applied the provision for "failure to appear as a material witness." He also challenged his sentences as substantively unreasonable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly considered the analogous sentence Defendant would receive, and determined that the sentence was not unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court could not conclude that Defendant's sentence was manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Carrillo-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the offense of illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. At sentencing, he moved for a downward variance from the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) range based on the staleness of his prior felony. The district court declined to grant it, instead sentencing Defendant at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Defendant's request for a downward variance, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's judgment.

Defendant Fernando Estrella pled guilty to one count of possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, and one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment. This sentence was below the statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment and at the low end of the 168- to 120-month advisory guideline range determined by the district court. In his plea agreement, Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his plea, sentence or any imposed restitution. Despite the waiver, Defendant filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the sentence. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver. On appeal, Defendant conceded that his appeal was within the scope of the waiver, and that he knowingly waived his appellate rights. He contended, however, that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" to enforce the waiver because the sentence was excessive. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's argument was "simply a claim of sentencing error" which did not establish that enforcement of the waiver would be unlawful. Accordingly, the Court granted the government's motion and dismissed the appeal.

Applicant prisoner Roscoe Ford sought a certificate of appealability from the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. An information filed in Colorado state court in 1997 charged Applicant with aggravated robbery and alleged that he was an habitual criminal. Applicant's first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on a verdict. At his second trial the getaway driver was unavailable and did not testify. The jury convicted Applicant of aggravated robbery and the court adjudicated him to be an habitual criminal under Colorado law. He was sentenced to life in prison. Applicant raised eleven claims in his motion for post-conviction relief, among them, he questioned the sufficiency of the evidence used against him, errors in the trial process, a general violation of his constitutional rights and ineffective appellate counsel. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no reasonable jurist could dispute the district court's decisions. The Court denied Applicant's application and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Autumn Seals sought reversal of his conviction on the grounds that he was denied a speedy trial. In this appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in granting a continuance without counting the elapsed time against the Speedy Trial Act clock. He argued that a new charge against him and the introduction of an alibi witness didn’t materially change the complexion of the case and didn’t justify a long a delay. And because the district court’s findings were insufficient to trigger an "ends-of-justice" delay, the Speedy Trial clock continued to run and expired long before his eventual trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant did not adequately preserve this issue for appeal. As such, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Fleming challenged his conviction and sentence by direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit. A jury convicted Defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The United States Probation Office's presentence report recommended a two-level enhancement on Defendant's offense level for obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant objected to the enhancement. The district court rejected his arguments and concluded that his conduct had "a tendency to obstruct justice and certainly created risks to the witnesses and concerns on their part." The court sentenced Defendant to 240 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Defendant argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments at trial and thereby violated his right to a fair trial. He also argued that the district court erred by applying the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the prosecutor's statements during closing argument did not warrant reversal of Petitioner's conviction. Furthermore, the Court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement to his sentence for obstruction of justice.

Pro se Plaintiff John Yancey appealed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. While Plaintiff was incarcerated in a detention center operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), he filed a "1983" complaint against CCA and its employees. The complaint in that case claimed Plaintiff "was unlawfully denied access to religious call-out and religious materials" during his incarceration. The district court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by statute. Before filing the complaint in this case, he was released from confinement. Plaintiff's civil rights complaint alleged a "conspiracy" among defendants prison and court officials to "manipulate cases against [CCA]." The district court reasoned the complaint contained nothing more than "conclusory allegations" without any meaningful factual support. Agreeing with the district court's conclusion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.

Defendant-Appellant Brian Williams appealed his 97-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. His counsel filed an "Anders" brief for leave to withdraw. Along with his plea agreement, Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to proceed to trial, and was properly advised of the consequences of his plea. Nevertheless, he sought to challenge his sentence. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, the Tenth Circuit granted Defendant's counsel to withdraw and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Albert Vaughan was convicted of one count of bank robbery and one count of use of a firearm during a crime of violence. His convictions arose from the robbery of the First Bank of Kansas in Salina, Kansas in 2004. At trial, over Defendant's objection, the district court allowed testimony concerning a prior bank robbery committed at the Bank of Colorado in Grand Junction, Colorado approximately two weeks earlier. The district court also admitted, again over Defendant's objection, an apology letter Defendant wrote after his arrest for the Salina robbery. Defendant appealed arguing both pieces of evidence were improperly admitted. Although the admission of the apology letter was error, the Tenth Circuit had "no grave doubt as to whether its admission had a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial." The Court affirmed the decision of the district court.

After being indicted for assault causing bodily injury to an employee of a federal high-security penitentiary engaged in the performance of his official duties, Defendant-Appellant Mark Denny pled guilty and was sentenced to forty-two months' imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court found that the guideline calculations in Defendant's PSR were correct, including the classification of Defendant as a career offender. Despite that, the court accepted his guilty plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to forty-two months, in accordance with the agreement. The government filed a motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal because he failed to establish any ground entitling him to one. Defendant responded that because his plea agreement provided for a sentence "of no more than 42 months," it was not a "specific sentence" for the purposes of the applicable statute, and therefore he was not bound by that statute. "[I]n the extremely strange factual situation of this case," the Tenth Circuit followed "the usual rule when there is a valid Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement" and thus conclude it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal.