Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant James Krolopp pled guilty to one count of possessing a sawed-off shotgun and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 120 monthsâ imprisonment for the shotgun, and 135 monthsâ imprisonment for the methamphetamine, each sentence to be served concurrently. Denver police officers executed a search warrant at Defendantâs home. During the search, they found over 200 grams of methamphetamine in rooms throughout the house. While inside, officers noticed an extensive display of edged weapons such as knives affixed to the walls. In a search of the bedroom, officers observed a large picture hanging over the bed attached with âVelcro.â When officers detached the picture from the wall, the sawed-off shotgun fell from behind the picture onto the bed. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence on the methamphetamine possession, arguing that the district court should not have applied a two-level enhancement under the US Sentencing Guidelines based on his possession of the shotgun during the commission of the methamphetamine offense. Upon review of the district court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendantâs sentences.

Petitioner Rodney Sampson was convicted in Oklahoma in 1996 on drug trafficking charges. He was paroled in 2002. The certificate of parole set Petitioner's discharge date to January 2008. In 2006, Petitioner was convicted in California on forgery charges. After serving his California sentence, Petitioner was extradited to Oklahoma and given a parole revocation hearing. Subsequently, Petitioner's parole was revoked in September 2008. Petitioner made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge the revocation of his parole, including filing motions for post-conviction relief and petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. In this case, Petitioner applied to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to seek the Court's review of those unsuccessful attempts. Petitioner asserted that the parole revocation was unlawful because his parole had been discharged before he was arrested in California and extraditing him to Oklahoma was a violation of his right to due process. Upon review of Petitioner's argument and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit held that Petitioner's claims were "not adequate to deserve further proceedings." Accordingly, the court denied Petitioner's request for a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant Misty Raley brought suit against Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai) alleging that one of its cars was defectively designed and responsible for injuries she suffered in an accident. Before trial began, Ms. Raley filed a motion to substitute BancFirst in her place as "the real party in interest" and as sole plaintiff in this case. Ms. Raley explained that a state probate court had appointed BancFirst to serve as guardian for her and her minor children. In light of this, all "interest" in the lawsuit had been transferred to the bank, to the exclusion of her and her children. After a "lengthy" trial, Hyundai prevailed. In entering its judgment, the district court mistakenly identified Ms. Raley and not BancFirst as the losing party-plaintiff. To confuse matters further, Ms. Raley then appealed, listing herself as the plaintiff-appellant seeking to undo the judgment. For its part, BancFirst did not appeal. The court caught its error, and amended its judgment. In response, Ms. Raley filed another appeal, still listing herself as plaintiff-appellant. Again, BancFirst filed nothing. "It is this that pose[d] a problem." BancFirst joined Ms. Raley's appeal to the Tenth Circuit without having first filed a notice that it intended to appeal. Ultimately the issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether a final judgment rendered against someone else can be appealed, "especially when you aren't a named party to the lawsuit and voluntarily left the case long ago." The Court held that generally, and in this case, "the answer is no." There was no appeal from a named party in this case. "[T]he question naturally arises whether Ms. Raley might be allowed to proceed as a party to this appeal even though she was, by the time the district court rendered its rulings, no longer a named party to the district court proceedings. ... She makes no mention of this possibility" in her arguments before the Court. "Where an appellant fails to lead, we have no duty to follow." The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Co-defendants and co-appellants Ramon Guzman-Manzo and Giovanni Galvon-Manzo each pled guilty to one count of cocaine possession with the intent to distribute. Each was subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence unless they qualified for a "safety-valve" reduction. Defendants would have qualified for such a reduction if the court found that, among other things, Defendants were truthful and forthcoming with the information they gave to the government in its investigation. The court found that provisions of the "safety-valve" were very broad, and required "disclosure of everything the defendant [knew] about his own actions and [of] those who participated in the crime with him." After hearing all testimony in the case, the court rejected the application of the safety-valve reduction to both defendants and sentenced each to 120 months' imprisonment. Defendants challenged the district court's determination of the truthfulness of certain witness' testimony. Upon review of Defendants' arguments in light of the trial record and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit deferred to the district court's assessment of the testimony presented at trial. Defendants' appeal was predicated primarily on the lower court's assessment of the truthfulness of that testimony. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendants' sentences.

In 2007, Petitioner Sandtas Metcalf pled guilty to drug possession charges. The written plea agreement contained a waiver of Petitioner's right to collaterally challenge his prosecution conviction or sentence. Petitioner was sentenced as a career offender under the federal Sentencing Guidelines based on three prior felony convictions. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit so that he could appeal the district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Tenth Circuit's review of the record found that the district court's dismissal was not "deserving of further proceedings." The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal and denied Petitioner's request for further appeal.

In 2003, Petitioner Jeffrey Zaring was arrested in Utah three times on drug charges. In 2004, the US Attorney's office filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad presequendum to arraign Petitioner on federal drug charges. Through the writ issues, Petitioner remained physically housed in a county jail. In order to try Petitioner on the state charges, Utah issued its own writ of habeas corpus ad presequendum later that year. Petitioner was sentenced in state court to a term of one to fifteen years, with the sentence to run concurrently with any sentence imposed for the pending federal charges. In 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to 121 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with his state sentence. Petitioner was returned to state custody, and finished his state sentence. He received credit against his state sentence for the time he spent in a local county jail. Once his state sentence was complete, Petitioner was transferred to federal custody. After transfer, and after exhausting his administrative remedies, Petitioner unsuccessfully petitioned the district court seeking credit against his federal sentence for his pre-trial detention. Upon consideration of Petitioner's sentences, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner was not entitled to apply the pre-detention credit twice. The Court affirmed the district court's decision.

After a jury trial, Defendant David Hillman was convicted on several money laundering charges arising from a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the insurance company for which he worked. Defendant's defense at trial was that he was duped by his then-girlfriend and co-worker, Hillary Shaffer, as to the source of the money. Defendant maintained that Ms. Shaffer told him the money they deposited in their joint bank account came from her grandmother's trust. The trial record revealed that the source of the money came from inactive annuities of the company's clients. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued multiple errors at trial: prosecutorial misconduct, a violation of his due process rights, and misguided jury instructions all denied him a fair trial. Upon review of Defendant's arguments against the trial record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that none of his claims fundamentally affected the fairness of his trial or were otherwise an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Petitioner Charles Medicine Blanket unsuccessfully appealed his conviction on sexual assault charges. He sought the writ of habeas corpus from the Tenth Circuit to challenge the district courtâs denial of his appeal. Though he committed his crimes in Colorado, Petitioner was arrested on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, and was extradited back to Colorado to stand trial. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner argued that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested with an "invalid" federal warrant, and then removed from the reservation without an extradition hearing. Furthermore, Petitioner alleged that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge his arrest warrant and extradition. The district court concluded that Petitioner failed to exhaust "certain due process claims" in his state post-conviction proceedings before bringing his appeal to the district court. Specifically, Petitioner failed to pursue his due process claims through "one complete round of the stateâs appellate process." Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not exhaust his due process claims in the lower courts, and as such, the lower courts were correct in denying him the relief he sought.

Plaintiff Johnny Bass brought a civil rights case against Defendants Pottawatomie County Public Safety Center (the Jail) and its warden. A jury found that the jail acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety when the evidence revealed Plaintiff was brutally beaten by another detainee while awaiting processing in an intake holding cell. As compensation for his injuries, the jury awarded Plaintiff $330,000 in damages. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Jail argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to hold it liable for Plaintiff's injuries. Upon careful consideration of the trial record and the Jail's own safety rules, the Tenth Circuit found ample evidence to support the jury's verdict and damages award. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

In 2009, when Dodge City police officers pulled Defendant Eusebio Sierra-Ledesma over for speeding, they found that Defendant had been deported in 2008 with no new authority to reenter or remain in the U.S. A jury convicted Defendant of having been found in the U.S. illegally. Defendant appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing multiple errors at trial. The sum of Defendant's argument was that the government failed to prove its case against him. Upon review of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit was "satisfied" that any error committed at trial was harmless. The Court found that the trial court instructed the jury multiple times throughout that Defendant was innocent until the government proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the record reflected substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the jury's verdict.