Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Damon Hunter appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence gathered from a vehicle in which he was traveling. In 2009, a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper pulled Defendant over pursuant to a "TOPS" initiative in which troopers would watch for highway safety issues through a semi-trailer truck equipped with cameras. The trooper explained to the occupants of the vehicle, with Defendant (in the passenger seat) and Alice Isaacson (the car driver), that he had pulled them over for driving too closely behind the semi. Further investigation would reveal that the car Defendant was riding in was a rental with an expired contract, and that Defendant intended, but neglected to extend the rental period. The trooper asked Defendant whether there was anything illegal in the car, but Defendant and Ms. Isaacson exchanged looks and said nothing. The trooper then asked whether he could search the car. Ms. Isaacson handed the keys to the trooper, and he searched the car. Ultimately the car was impounded because police found thirty-five pounds of marijuana, a kilogram of cocaine and a weapon inside. Defendant was indicted on possession and intent-to-distribute drugs charges, as well as firearms charges. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence found in the car, and later entered a conditional guilty plea for which he was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on multiple grounds, notably that (1) the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle for following too closely; (2) Defendant's detention was impermissibly prolonged and not reasonably related to the justification for the stop; and (3) Ms. Isaacson did not have authority, apparent or otherwise, to give consent to search the car. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit "easily" concluded that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Jakub Lonski appealed a district court's dismissal of his "motion for adjustment of sentence pursuant to a habeas petition." Petitioner claimed Canadian citizenship and was being held in New Mexico. He was convicted of a federal drug-related offense in California and sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment. He argued that because of his alien status rendering him ineligible for certain drug-treatment programs and residential re-entry programs made his sentence was harsher than ones imposed on citizen-prisoners. The Tenth Circuit found that district court correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to alter a sentence imposed by another court unless Congress had expressly authorized such action. On appeal, however, Petitioner changed his argument. Before the Tenth Circuit, he claimed that he should have been given a hearing so that he could complete deportation proceedings while in prison so that he could be immediately deported on release. The Tenth Circuit declined to consider Petitioner's new arguments, and affirmed the district court's denial of his motion.

Petitioner Kevin Winchester sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Petitioner raised three issues on direct appeal: (1) his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated when the trial court permitted the introduction of the victim’s petition for a protective order; (2) the judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first degree heat of passion manslaughter; and (3) the sentence imposed was excessive. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. Petitioner then filed an application for post-conviction relief with the Oklahoma district court, raising five claims of error. With the exception of allegations of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, the court concluded Petitioner's claims were barred from post-conviction review because he was attempting to re-argue issues already raised on direct appeal or issues that could have been raised on direct appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner had not made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights. The Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Julian Russell petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealablity (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for the writ of habeas corpus. In 2009, Russell was convicted of attempted aggravated indecent solicitation of a child and sentenced to twenty-four months’ probation with an underlying sentence of twenty-four months’ incarceration. Petitioner was also sentenced to lifetime postrelease supervision. The district court dismissed Petitioner's petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Finding that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights, the Tenth Circuit concluded he was not entitled to a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Appellant Julian Russell petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealablity (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for the writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed an application for habeas relief to challenge his pretrial detention at the Marion County Jail in Kansas. The district court dismissed his application, concluding abstention was appropriate based on the doctrine enunciated in "Younger v. Harris," (401 U.S. 37 (1971)). The court also concluded that Appellant failed to exhaust his state remedies. Upon review of Appellant's COA application, appellate brief, and district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Appellant was not entitled to a COA. The Court denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Plaintiffs Edward Klen, Diverse Construction, Stephen Klen and Holstein Self-Service Storage, LLC brought a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Loveland Colorado and various City employees alleging "a plethora" of constitutional violations involving: the defendants' alleged imposition of deliberate delays and unreasonable requirements for Plaintiffs' building permit; solicitation of illegal and extortionate fees for the permit; use of perjury in criminal ordinance violation proceedings; retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights; forgery of Plaintiffs' permit application to facilitate a wrongful prosecution; and trespassing by a building inspector. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Plaintiffs' federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit could not agree with the district court's conclusion that there was no causal connection between an alleged affidavit used to support Plaintiffs' claim that they were being selectively prosecuted and the outcome of that prosecution. "It is not possible to determine on this record whether, absent the affidavit, the state municipal court would have dismissed the prosecution against Ed Klen, obviating the need for a no contest plea to avoid the possibility of a trial and even of jail time for the offenses. We therefore reverse summary judgment as to this claim." The court affirmed the district court in all other respects.

Appellant Jason Edgar Kort pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. He appealed his 135-month sentence on grounds the district court erred in denying both his request for an additional two-level downward departure based on his substantial assistance to the government and his motion for a variance based on the same assistance to the government and an alleged sentencing disparity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court considered all of Appellant's contentions concerning his government assistance and sufficiently explained Appellant's sentence, including why it declined to provide a variance for such assistance. Appellant did not provide a persuasive argument for the purpose of rebutting the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on government assistance grounds nor otherwise shown his 135-month sentence, which was at the low end of the Guidelines range, was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment and Appellant's sentence.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Melvin Holly petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial in part and dismissal in part of his "Motion for Severance, 'Conflict of Interest,' Change of Venue, Pursuant to Rule 18 U.S.C. 3234 Fed. R. Crim. P." Petitioner was a former sheriff and had been convicted on numerous counts "related to the sexual abuse of inmates, employees, and an employee's daughter at the Latimer County jail." He pursued a direct appeal, a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence and various other forms of relief. Petitioner's motion asserted that: (1) because the Tenth Circuit had reversed some of his convictions in his direct appeal, those counts should be severed from the remaining counts of conviction; (2) some of the jurors knew him, requiring a change of venue; (3) his defense counsel had a conflict of interest because counsel was representing another defendant (whom Petitioner had arrested and jailed at the Latimer County jail) in a separate proceeding; (4) the then-current United States Attorney had a conflict of interest because he and Petitioner were longtime friends; and (5) in light of these issues, Petitioner was deprived of his liberty without due process. In addition to severance and a change of venue, Petitioner requested a new trial or a reversal of his convictions. Because his motion attempted to bring unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 claims, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights complaint for failure to comply with a district court’s order and failure to prosecute. Because Defendants Utah Department of Corrections and several prison officials conceded that the district court's dismissal contravened the "prison mailbox rule," the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 1996, Defendant Peter Gutierrez pled guilty to two federal firearms offenses. The district court sentenced him to 235 months' imprisonment, the low end of the applicable guideline range. Prior to 2010, the sentencing guidelines provided for two additional criminal history points if a defendant committed the crime at issue within two years of being released from imprisonment. These two "recency" points moved Defendant from criminal history category IV to category V. Defendant argued on appeal that Amendment 742 to the guidelines, which removed the "recency" points from the guidelines, should apply retroactively to his sentence and thereby reduce it. The district court rejected this argument. Following precedent in "United States v. Torres-Aquino," 334 F.3d 939 (10th Cir. 2003), the Tenth Circuit concluded that Amendment 742 was not one of the amendments listed in U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, and therefore Defendant had no right to a reduction in sentence. The Court affirmed the district court's refusal to reduce Defendant's sentence.