Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Gloria Porter was convicted of 105 counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and one count of identity theft. She appealed her convictions, arguing that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury with respect to aggravated identity theft and that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions for wire fraud and mail fraud. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

Defendant Jermaine Mosley entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the gun that was the basis of this offense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Mosley" on Justia Law

Defendant Leslie Susan Harrison was convicted by a jury of conspiring to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, for which she was sentenced to 360 months in prison. On appeal she challenged the sentence on five grounds. : Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings, agreeing with defendant's reasoning on her first argument: when she challenged the drug-quantity calculation in the PSR, the district court did not require the government to put on evidence supporting the calculation, stating that the PSR was based on trial testimony. This statement was inaccurate, and the error was not harmless because the trial evidence would not compel a finding of at least 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. The other issues could have been mooted on remand, and therefore the Court did not address them. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Defendant-Appellees GeoDynamics, Inc., its managing director Jeffory Shields, and several other business entities affiliated with Shields, alleging securities fraud in connection with four oil and gas exploration and drilling ventures Shields marketed to thousands of investors as Joint Venture Agreements (JVAs). The district court granted defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The SEC appealed, contending that despite their labels as JVAs, the investment agreements were actually "investment contracts" and thus "securities" subject to federal securities regulations. Because it could not be said as a matter of law that the investments at issue were not "investment contracts," the Tenth Circuit reversed. View "SEC v. Shields, et al" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals from two Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtors challenged the district court’s order reversing confirmation of their reorganization plans and remanding their cases to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider these appeals, the Court dismissed them. View "Gordon, et al v. Bank of America, N.A., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Dennis Augustine was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Before trial, he filed two separate motions to suppress evidence: (1) one to quash a warrant to search Defendant’s residence and to suppress evidence found in that search which led directly to his arrest; and (2) one to suppress Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officials after his arrest. The district denied both motions. After the subsequent trial, the jury found Defendant guilty on both counts of conspiracy. View "United States v. Augustine" on Justia Law

Pro se defendant-appellant Charles Baldwin was convicted for violating two federal regulations: failing to comply with directions of federal police officers, and for "loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct" on federal property that "imped[ed] or distrup[ed] the performance of official duties by" government employees. Defendant worked as an attorney for the Department of the Interior. The charges arose when, leaving for work, defendant sped through the parking lot, and swerved to miss hitting a bicyclist. A Federal Protective Service officer wanted to issue defendant a warning, but before he could finish, defendant drove off, ignoring the officer's commands to stop. The officer followed defendant off federal grounds, stopped defendant again, and asked for license, registration and proof of insurance. Defendant refused to comply, had to be forced from his vehicle, and was eventually restrained with handcuffs. Among other things, defendant argued that violating the two federal regulations wasn't a crime; they were administrative rules or policies that carried no penalty. And that even if they were crimes, defendant contended he didn't act with the sufficient mens rea to be held criminally culpable. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the circumstances of this case. And while the regulations "certainly do delineate policy, . . .that isn't all they do. Another section of the same regulatory 'subpart' expressly provides that the very sections Mr. Baldwin violated can be enforced through criminal sanctions." Furthermore, the Court found that "a law's silence about mens rea doesn't necessarily mean violating it isn't a crime." The Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Defendants Eddie Serrato and Sotero Negrete were drug dealers. They both were found guilty of multiple counts related to their involvement in a methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy centered in Wyoming. On appeal, Serrato challenged his conviction and sentence: (1) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct that violated his constitutional rights; (2) there was an unconstitutional variance between the crime charged (a single conspiracy) and the evidence presented at trial (two separate conspiracies); (3) the district court abused its discretion in its calculation of his offense level; and (4) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop that constituted an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Negrete raised essentially the same first two arguments that Serrato raised, adding the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of using or carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions. View "United States v. Serrato" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Robert Bonnet is a petroleum landman who conducted business through Bobby Bonnet Land Services. In 2008, Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with the Energy and Minerals Department of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to serve collectively as an independent contractor and consultant. When the Tribe terminated this contract in 2009, Plaintiffs sued various companies and individuals (but not the Tribe) in federal court, alleging these defendants caused the Tribe to terminate this contract prematurely. Plaintiffs served the Tribe with a non-party subpoena duces tecum requesting documents relevant to their suit. The Tribe moved to quash the subpoena based on the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The district court denied the Tribe's motion, but modified the subpoena to limit or strike requests it deemed overbroad. The Tribe appealed. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party Tribe seeking documents relevant to a civil suit in federal court is itself a "suit" against the Tribe triggering tribal sovereign immunity. Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, the Court concluded, yes, it is a "suit" against the Tribe. Therefore the Court reversed the district court's denial of the Tribe's motion to quash based on tribal immunity. View "Bonnet v. Ute Indian Tribe" on Justia Law

Appellant was driving across New Mexico with drugs hidden in his spare tire. He was stopped by police for erratic driving, ultimately on suspicion that when appellant crossed the "fog line" he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Appellant was stopped, the car searched, the drugs found, and later arrested. The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether the traffic stop was reasonable: at what point otherwise ordinary driving errors crosses the line into reasonable suspicion for police to stop a car for a traffic violation. The Tenth Circuit concluded that appellant's stop was indeed reasonable. Therefore the Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying appellant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Harmon" on Justia Law