Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Lazaro Villalobos-Varela appealed a district court’s sentence of thirty months' imprisonment for re-entry as a removed alien in violation of federal immigration law. According to Defendant, the district court incorrectly concluded that his Colorado felony menacing conviction was a crime of violence and subjected him to a 16-Level Enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guideline Manual (USSG) 2L1.2. Upon review and analysis of Defendant's Colorado conviction, the Tenth Circuit concluded that indeed "felony menacing" was a crime of violence, and that the district court correctly calculated his sentence. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.

On the morning his jury trial was scheduled to begin, Defendant Francisco Solorio-Mondragon pled guilty to (1) conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute, and (2) possessing more than fifty grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The district court calculated the applicable sentencing guidelines range to be 151 to 188 months of imprisonment for both counts. In light of additional drug activity that Defendant admitted to, the court imposed a sentence at the high end but still within the calculated guidelines range. On appeal, Defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to "Anders v. California," (386 U.S. 738 (1967)), explaining why counsel believed there to be no reasonable grounds for appeal. Defendant and the government were both given the opportunity to file a response to the Anders brief, but neither did so. Upon review of the record and counsel's brief, the Tenth Circuit agreed that none of Defendant's arguments raised a meritorious issue for appeal. As such, the Tenth Circuit granted counsel's motion to withdraw and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Defendant Larry Koch appealed a jury’s verdict that found him guilty of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Defendant admitted others committed bank fraud but disputed that he knowingly participated in their conspiracy. Alternatively, Defendant argued his conviction should have been overturned because the government failed to indict him sooner than it did. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence presented at trial with which the jury could conclude Defendant was guilty. Furthermore, Defendant's failed to carry his burden of proving he suffered actual prejudice from the time the government charged him with conspiracy and the time he went to trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Petitioner Joe Mendoza was docked 40 days good time credit for violating the Bureau of Prison's (BOP) policy on drug use. He filed a habeas petition to challenge the fairness of the disciplinary proceeding and requested the Tenth Circuit expunge the sanction from his record and restore the good time credit. Finding no constitutional violation in the BOP's proceedings, the district court affirmed. Upon review of the BOP and district court records, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding none of Petitioner's allegations rose to violations of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff-Appellant Susan Rose, a Utah lawyer, initiated the underlying federal lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of state disciplinary proceedings brought against her by the Utah bar. She also sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin those proceedings. The district court denied the injunction, and while this appeal from the injunction decision was pending, it dismissed the underlying action. The Bar moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming it was mooted by the dismissal of the underlying action. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed this appeal was moot, and granted the Bar's motion to dismiss.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Roberto Jackson sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challege a district court's dismissal of his unauthorized second or successive petitions for habeas relief for lack of jurisdiction. In 2003, Petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court on one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment on each count, the terms to be served concurrently. On direct appeal the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions and sentences. Petitioner pursued state post-conviction relief, but the OCCA affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief.In 2007, Petitioner unsuccesfully petitioned for habeas relief. In 2011, he filed a second petition to challenge his convictions. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner contended that the district court should have transferred his petition to the Tenth Circuit instead of dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct in dismissing Petitioner's second habeas petition. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Eric Phillips applied for a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. After pleading guilty in Oklahoma state court to two counts each of first degree murder and unauthorized removal of a dead body, Petitioner was sentenced to life. He did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise pursue direct appeal of his conviction. In late 2009, a state district court held a hearing to review Petitioner's sentence, but denied his request for modification. A member of Petitioner's family found him an attorney to challenge the outcome of the 2009 hearing. The attorney told Petitioner he believed Petitioner had a viable habeas claim, but miscalculated the filing deadline. Unable to actually prepare the claim himself, the attorney assisted Petitioner to file the habeas petition pro se. Petitioner filed the claim, but it was denied by the court as time-barred. Petitioner argued he was entitled to equitable tolling for the attorney's miscalculation. Finding that an inmate was entitled to statutory tolling of the limitations period when a properly filed application for post-conviction relief was pending, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner's application was indeed improperly filed. He was not therefore entitled to equitable tolling. The Court dismissed his application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

A jury convicted Lindsey Springer of one count of conspiring with Oscar Stilley to defraud the United States, three counts of tax evasion, and two counts of willful failure to file a tax return. Mr. Stilley was convicted of one count of conspiracy and two counts of aiding and abetting Mr. Springer’s tax evasion. The district court sentenced both men to fifteen years in prison, three years of supervised release, and restitution for tax losses exceeding $2 million. Mr. Springer and Mr. Stilley (Defendants) respectively challenged their convictions and sentences. Mr. Springer founded "Bondage Breakers Ministries" to offer legal and tax advice to individuals embroiled in tax disputes for which he was paid thousands upon thousands of dollars. He eventually met Mr. Stilley (now a disbarred lawyer) and together they devised a scheme to channel Mr. Springer's unreported income through Mr. Stilley's client trust account. "By 2005, Mr. Springer had gained the full attention of the IRS." The government executed a search warrant of Mr. Springer's residence, and Mr. Stilley was served with a grand jury subpoena. During the course of the investigation, Defendants denied receiving any income for their advice, representing instead that people simply made donations to Mr. Springer’s ministry, with no expectation of services in return. But at trial, the government refuted those statements, offering testimony from numerous witnesses who had paid large sums of money to defendants in exchange for their supposed tax and legal expertise. Based on this and other evidence, the jury convicted Defendants on all counts to which Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court. The Court affirmed Defendants' respective convictions and sentences.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Darren Brad West sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of two methamphetamine-related charges. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment. Petitioner appealed his sentence, asserting that the district court erred in using U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c)(2), instead of 2D1.11, to set his offense level; and (2) the district court erred in determining the amount of methamphetamine that could be produced from the manufacturing materials found with him when he was arrested. Rejecting these assertions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied relief. Petitioner did not appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to modify, correct, and/or reduce his sentence contending that (1) he was actually innocent of the imposed sentence because it was improperly enhanced under 2D1.1. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not present evidence that he was entitled to a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

Following a determination that Defendant George Koufos had a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a district court sentenced him to a total term of 76 months’ imprisonment for two firearms offenses and two bank fraud offenses. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it considered his 1990 conviction for a 1986 escape from custody as a "crime of violence" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that while awaiting arraignment after his 1986 arrest, Defendant escaped custody at the courthouse. The district court reasoned "it must be assumed as matter of fact as part of the language of [the Information] that there are people who are armed and who are there to prevent escape. So why isn’t that a powder keg ready to explode when somebody attempts to escape?" The district court concluded Defendant's conduct presented a serious potential risk of injury to another and was, therefore, a crime of violence. Upon review of the applicable case law, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's escape "could have easily ended in a confrontation leading to violence." Accordingly, the Court agreed with the district court's conclusion that Defendant's 1986 escape was indeed a crime of violence, the Court affirmed the calculation of his sentence.