Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant David Ciempa petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his habeas petition to challenge the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' (ODOC) revocation of his "good time credits." After an Oklahoma state prison disciplinary proceeding found inmate Defendant guilty of “Individual Disruptive Behavior,” and revoked the credits. In response to this decision, Defendant first appealed to the ODOC and then filed a petition for review in Oklahoma state court. The state court, however, dismissed his petition as untimely under Oklahoma law. After the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, Defendant sought to pursue a habeas petition in federal district court, but the district court held the petition procedurally barred. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendant procedurally defaulted his claims. Therefore the Court affirmed the district court's decision and denied Defendant's request for a COA.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Dexter Johnson sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to appeal a district court's dismissal of his unauthorized or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. In 1996, Petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court on one count of shooting with intent to kill. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction. In 1999, Petitioner was unsuccessful in his state application for post-conviction relief. In 2010, Petitioner filed a second application for relief. The court concluded that in light of the dismissal of Petitioner's first petition, the second was unauthorized, and that the claims alleged in his second petition were time-barred. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner contended that the district court "clearly" erred in concluding that his claims were time-barred. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner indeed filed his petition well after the one-year period for filing for post-conviction relief, with no basis for equitable tolling. Furthermore, Petitioner's brief did not address the district court's determination that his second petition was unauthorized, to which the Tenth Circuit concluded that no "jurist of reason" would debate the district court's dismissal on that ground. Accordingly, the Court determined that Petitioner failed to establish he was entitled to a COA, and dismissed his request.

Defendant David Sussman appealed a district court’s revocation of his supervised release. Defendant contended on appeal that he was deprived of liberty without due process of law when federal authorities lodged a detainer with the county jail where he was serving a state sentence but did not execute the arrest warrant until he was released from state custody. Defense counsel requested permission to withdraw from the case and filed an "Anders" brief because he believed there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. Defendant responded pro se, seeking appointment of new counsel and identifying grounds for the appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant's grounds for appeal were meritless. The Court granted his counsel permission to withdraw, denied Defendant's motion to appoint new counsel, and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Pro se prisoner Appellant James McKeighan appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees seven Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) employees and former Deputy U.S. Marshal Mike Shute. Appellant claimed that while he was a pretrial detainee at the CCA facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, he was (1) "denied outside recreation while housed in an overcrowded cell," in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (2) "confined in segregation as punishment for attempting to defend his criminal case," in violation of the First Amendment. In granting defendants' motions for summary judgment, the district court found that there was no material issue of fact regarding Appellant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that his claims must be dismissed as a matter of law. Furthermore, the court ruled that Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts to state a violation of his constitutional rights. After careful review of Appellant's brief, the record on appeal, and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the court's "thorough" memorandum and order.

This case concerned the appeal of two district court orders. The first order granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants County of Bernalillo and several county officials against Plaintiffs Doris Lujan and her minor daughters, R.L. and D.L., on their claims for the alleged violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The second order is one that referred a memorandum and order concerning Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Dennis Montoya, to the Chief Judge of the New Mexico Federal District Court and to the Chief Counsel of the Disciplinary Board for the State Bar of New Mexico. The issues raised by Plaintiff on appeal concerned the searches of Doris Lujan and her daughters and the detention of the minors in an adult holding cell pending their release to a responsible party. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including qualified immunity. Plaintiffs never addressed qualified immunity in their appeal. "Even if [the Tenth Circuit Court] were inclined to overlook this failure, the result would be the same, because just as in the district court, Plaintiffs have failed to explain how the alleged misconduct violated their constitutional rights, and more to the point, that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident." The Court did not consider Mr. Montoya's memorandum referred to the chief judge and disciplinary counsel because he "apparently abandoned the appeal." The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant-Appellant Byckley Charles Leutwiler was convicted by a jury of two counts of Possession of a Machine Gun, and one count of Possession of a Firearm with an Obliterated Serial Number. Defendant was sentenced to thirty-eight months imprisonment and appealed his sentence to the Tenth Circuit. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred when it admitted other crimes evidence without prior notice and findings contrary to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because Defendant did not preserve this issue by objecting at trial to the admission of the evidence, the Tenth Circuit's review was for plain error. Finding none in its review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant-Appellant Uriel Santos-Santos appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He contended that the district court erred in applying a 16-level offense adjustment pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines resulting in a 57-month sentence. Defendant, a Mexican citizen, was convicted in California of (1) inflicting corporal injury on a spouse with a specified prior conviction within seven years and (2) assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. In 2007 he was deported to Mexico, but in January 2010 immigration officials discovered him in Arapahoe County Jail in Centennial, Colorado. That April, Defendant pled guilty to the federal offense. The Presentence Report, on the basis of Defendant's California assault conviction, reflected an offense adjustment of 16 offense levels for defendants who have unlawfully reentered after a conviction for a "crime of violence." This produced an advisory Guideline range of 57-71 months' imprisonment. Defendant unsuccessfully objected to the PSR. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the California convictions were "crimes of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the district court did not err in enhancing Defendant's sentence based on those convictions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

Petitioner Charles Raymond Wheeler appealed a Tax Court decision finding him liable for (1) income-tax deficiencies for the years 2002, 2004, and 2005; (2) additions to tax for those years; and (3) a $25,000 sanction. Petitioner did not claim to have filed returns for the years in question, or to have paid taxes owing for those years, yet he urged the Tenth Circuit to overturn the Tax Court’s decision and determine that he had no liability. He contended on appeal that the Commissioner did not prove that he had failed to file returns, did not carry the burden of production on the additions to tax, and did not create a valid substitute return to support the taxes and additions imposed. In addition, he claimed that the Tax Court judge was biased against him. The Commissioner filed a motion for sanctions against Petitioner for filing a frivolous appeal maintained primarily for delay. Upon review of Petitioner's arguments, the Tenth Circuit found all without merit and affirmed the Tax Court's decisions and the imposition of sanctions.

Defendant Shaun Salazar pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to 115 months imprisonment. He appealed his sentence, claiming the district court erred in calculating his offense level and in imposing an unreasonable sentence. In affirming the district court's calculation of Defendant's sentence, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant had "not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. Contrary to his argument, his crime was not 'fairly mitigated'; rather, his extensive criminal history, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and decision to abscond fairly demanded a condign sentence. Even if the guidelines might occasionally produce an unreasonable sentence in a case presenting substantial mitigating factors, this is not such a case. There was no abuse of discretion."

Defendant Dwayne Hudson petitioned the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. In the complaint, Defendant alleged his civil rights were violated stemming from the revocation of his parole for failing to register as a sex offender. The district court concluded Defendant's complaint was legally frivolous and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. Upon review of the trial record and the brief Defendant presented on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant did not present "reasoned, non-frivolous arguments" in support of the issues he raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's appeal as frivolous and denied his motion to proceed on appeal and reminded him of his obligation to pay the filing and docket fees in full to the clerk of the district court.