Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Erlin Ayala appealed his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. He argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order.

The Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act provides that individuals adjudged to be sexually violent predators due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder shall be committed to the custody of the secretary of social and rehabilitation services for control, care and treatment until such time as the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the person is safe to be at large. Appellant Timothy Burch was a sexually violent predator committed to the Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP) at Larned State Hospital. He and other Larned residents initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to challenge the adequacy of the SPTP provided at Larned. The other residents voluntarily dismissed their claims, but Appellant filed an amended complaint, insisting the SPTP is inadequate to treat his condition and provide a realistic opportunity for his release. In addition, Appellant alleged that Defendants improperly punished him by, among other things, interfering with his educational endeavors, revoking his work privileges, and reducing his treatment classification level through manipulation of his treatment progress scores. In a fifty-two page opinion, the court analyzed Appellant's allegations, distilled his claims, and concluded he was not entitled to relief. As is relevant to this appeal, the court determined that most of Appellant's claims failed to adequately allege Defendants' personal participation in the claimed misconduct. As for the rest of his claims, the court discussed the unique principles and standards governing the KSVPA and concluded that Appellant failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Regarding the claims of inadequate treatment, the court ruled that Appellant enjoyed no substantive due process right to treatment culminating in his release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's "thorough and well-reasoned order. The court accurately analyzed Mr. Burch's claims and correctly determined that he was not entitled to relief."

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Ronald Bishop sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted by an Oklahoma state-court jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and aggravated attempt to elude a police officer after two or more previous convictions. He was sentenced to consecutive imprisonment terms of 55 years and 25 years for the two counts. The district court declined to address Petitioner's issues on appeal. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," the Court denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Cynthia Pinkey sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed Petitioner's habeas petition as time-barred and found no circumstances warranting equitable tolling. Petitioner claimed that Coloradoâs Department of Corrections (CDOC) violated her constitutional rights by miscalculating her sentence. The Tenth Circuit in its review found the district court's determination that Petitioner's petition was time barred and not eligible for equitable tolling was "not reasonably debatable." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed her appeal.

Pro se prisoner Movant Michael Rains applied to the Tenth Circuit for a second or successive application for habeas corpus. In 2001, Movant pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to making a telephone bomb threat, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and robbery. He was sentenced to ten, twenty, and twenty years of imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. He filed his first petition in federal district court in 2007, asserting that (1) his sentence was excessive because he was eighteen years old at the time of the offenses, he was a first-time offender, and the victims were uninjured; (2) his robbery sentences were illegal; (3) his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was not told he would need to serve at least 85% of the sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (4) his counsel was ineffective for coercing him to plead guilty, failing to inform him that he would serve 85% of the robbery-with-a-dangerous- weapon sentence, and inadequately negotiating the plea. In 2008 he filed another petition, re-asserting the first, third, and fourth claims. The district court decided this filing was an unauthorized second or successive petition. Because Movant sought to assert claims that the previously asserted, the Tenth Circuit denied him permission to proceed, affirming the district court's dismissal.

Israeli citizens Arturas Bakanovas, Edita Bakanovas, and their daughter, Karolina Bakanovas, sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied their motion to reopen. In 1990 Arturas and Edita Bakanovas emigrated from Lithuania to Israel and became Israeli citizens. In 1991 they entered the United States on visitor visas and, after they overstayed their visas and the Immigration and Nationalization Service issued orders to show cause why they should not be deported, Arturas applied for asylum. The asylum application stated that Arturas had suffered persecution in Israel because of his Catholic faith and Lithuanian origin, that Edita had suffered persecution in Lithuania because of her Jewish faith, and that they both suffered persecution in Israel because of their interfaith marriage. In 1994 an immigration judge denied the Bakanovases asylum and withholding of deportation but granted their request for voluntary departure, with an alternate order of deportation to Israel or Lithuania if they remained in the United States after the voluntary-departure deadline. In October 2000 the BIA affirmed the order, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Bakanovases did not leave the United States, and in January 2007 they were arrested on immigration charges and released on bond. They then met with their current attorney, who informed them in April 2007 of the availability of relief under the Convention Against Torture. In March 2010, almost three years later, they filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, which the BIA denied. They petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Because the denial of a motion to reopen is "a final, separately appealable order," the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the case. The Court dismissed Petitioners' appeal.

Petitioner Christopher Yancey filed an action in district court contending that Oklahoma state-court rulings terminating his parental rights over his Indian child were invalid under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The district court dismissed his action, determining that either federal abstention was mandated, or the action was barred by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Tiffany Leatherman and Petitioner are the natural parents of Baby Boy L. Petitioner was a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Indian Nation of Oklahoma, but Leatherman was not a member of any Native American tribe. Petitioner and Leatherman were teenagers when the child was conceived, and they never married. Before the child was born, Leatherman decided to place him for adoption, and she located Timothy and Tammy Thomas who were interested in adopting him. In December 2002, Leatherman brought an action in Oklahoma state court to terminate Petitioner's parental rights and to determine the childâs eligibility for adoption without Petitioner's consent. Leatherman appeared in court, relinquished her parental rights, and consented to the adoption. Petitioner appeared in the proceedings and objected to the adoption. On May 18, 2010, the Oklahoma trial court entered an order terminating Petitioner's parental rights. The court found that the ICWA had been complied with and that the Thomases had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner's custody of Baby Boy L. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. There was no indication in the record that Petitioner appealed that order. On the day after the Oklahoma trial court entered its order, Petitioner filed this action against the Thomases. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not err in dismissing Yanceyâs federal-court action because it was barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision terminating Appellant's parental rights.

Bureau of Prisons officers searched Defendant-Appellant Odalis Perez-Jiminezâs person and cell at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. In his pockets, they found two shanks. Defendant was indicted on one count of possession of a weapon while an inmate of a federal correctional institution. He pled guilty. At sentencing, the district court found that this offense conviction was a 'crime of violence' pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, and that he was a career offender. Applying the career-offender provisions, the district court assigned Defendant an offense level of fourteen and a criminal history category of VI. These factors yielded an imprisonment range of thirty-seven to forty-six months and a fine range of $4000 to $40,000. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-seven monthsâ imprisonment and imposed a fine of $2000. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because his latest conviction was not a 'crime of violence' and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a $2000 fine. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision: "Mr. Perez-Jiminezâs fine is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness on appeal, which Mr. Perez-Jiminez ... failed to rebut. Accordingly, the district court did not substantively err by sentencing Mr. Perez-Jiminez to a $2000 fine."

Defendant Brian Charles Olinger appealed the eighteen-month term of imprisonment the district court imposed after he pled guilty to three Grade C violations of his supervised release. On September 30, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to fifteen monthsâ imprisonment and 120 monthsâ supervised release on one count of failing to register as a sex offender. Defendant expressly raised a substantive challenge to his eighteen-month term of imprisonment, arguing that his sentence was too long because it was more than triple the low end of the advisory guideline range and because it reflected punishment for possession of child pornographyâan allegation made in a violation the government agreed to dismiss because defendant did not admit that he possessed it and the government could not prove that he did. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit "[could not] conclude that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of eighteen months." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Ruben Flores-Olmos pleaded guilty to one count of being an alien in the United States after deportation but reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence acquired during a traffic stop. On appeal, Flores-Olmos argued that he was the victim of racial profiling. He further contended that the Oklahoma seat belt law is ambiguous and that the doctrine of lenity should absolve him. Finding no error in the district court's refusal to suppress evidence of Flores-Olmosâs illegal presence in the United States, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.