Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2012, James Black was convicted by jury of conspiring to distributing cocaine, using a telephone in committing or in causing the facility, and possessing with intent to distribute. The convictions stemmed from charges made in the government’s Fifth Superseding Indictment in a longstanding, multi-defendant case that began in November 2007. Between the First Superseding Indictment (in which Black was first charged) and the jury trial, the government filed another four superseding indictments and twice dismissed the case: once to pursue an interlocutory appeal and once to avoid dismissal of the cocaine-conspiracy charge. After the jury’s verdict, the district court sentenced Black to 30 years’ imprisonment. Black appealed, arguing that the district court plainly erred in calculating the United States Sentencing Guidelines advisory range at 360 months’ imprisonment to life. Black also argued that the government’s 23-month delay in bringing him to trial, together with the delay between the filing of the second-to-last indictment and Black’s trial, denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the government didn’t violate Black’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. But because the Court concluded that the district court plainly erred in calculating Black’s advisory Guidelines range, Black’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

Zia Shadows, LLC operated a mobile-home park in Las Cruces, New Mexico, under a special-use permit from the City. In late 2000, a dispute over water-rights fees arose between Zia Shadows and the City, and principal Alex Garth protested these fees and lodged written and oral complaints with the City Council. This appeal arose out of that zoning dispute. Zia Shadows and its principals, Alex and William Garth (collectively, Zia Shadows), filed suit in federal district court, alleging the City’s delays in approval of a zoning request (and the conditions ultimately attached to the approval) violated Zia Shadows’ rights to due process and equal protection. Zia Shadows also alleged the City’s actions were taken in retaliation for Zia Shadows’ public criticisms of the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on Zia Shadows’ due-process and equal-protection claims, and a jury found in favor of the City on Zia Shadows’ First Amendment retaliation claim. Zia Shadows argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit: (1) that the district court erred in granting summary judgment; (2) the district court abused its discretion both in its instruction of the jury and its refusal to strike a juror; and (3) the jury’s verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding Zia Shadows failed to establish the requisite elements of its due-process and equal-protection claims and did not demonstrate reversible error in either the proceedings or verdict at trial. View "Zia Shadows, LLC v. City of Las Cruces" on Justia Law

Matthew Hale was convicted of obstruction of justice and soliciting the murder of a federal judge. After filing an unsuccessful motion for collateral relief, he filed a habeas corpus application, arguing: (1) because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish guilt under the solicitation and obstruction statutes, he was “actually innocent;" and (2) he claimed that possible juror misconduct, which he learned about after his section 2255 motion had been denied, may have deprived him of his right to an impartial jury. The district court denied the "section 2241" application under 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) for lack of statutory jurisdiction, and Hale appealed. Finding that Hale’s application was barred under the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of section 2255(e) in "Prost v. Anderson," (636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011)), the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Hale v. Fox" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Cody Little was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and of possessing a stolen firearm. Little appealed, challenging how the jury was instructed at trial. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Little's contention that constructive possession required proof of intent to exercise dominion and control over an object following the Supreme Court’s opinion in "Henderson v. United States," (135 S. Ct. 1780 (2015)). However, because the evidence presented at trial compelled the conclusion that Little intended to exercise control over the weapons, the Court held that district court’s error in omitting the intent element from its jury instruction was harmless. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court permissibly issued instructions regarding aiding and abetting and possible guilt of others, and that a deliberate indifference instruction was harmless. However, the Court found that the district court erroneously relied on the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause in calculating Little’s offense level. The Court affirmed the convictions, but remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Little" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that defendant Gary Herbert, the Governor of Utah, violated PPAU’s constitutional rights by directing defendant Joseph Miner, the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health (UDOH), to stop UDOH from acting as an intermediary for “pass-through” federal funds that PPAU used to carry out certain programs within the State of Utah. PPAU also filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. Although the district court initially issued a TRO, it ultimately withdrew it and denied PPAU’s request for a preliminary injunction. PPAU filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of its motion for preliminary injunction. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay in favor of PPAU to prevent the cessation of funding during the pendency of this appeal, and expedited the briefing and oral argument schedule. After that briefing and oral argument, the Tenth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant PPAU’s motion for preliminary injunction. View "Planned Parenthood v. Herbert" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Rachel Basurto was convicted on federal drug charges. In light of the conviction, the district court had to decide whether to impose a fine and, if the court did, to set the amount. Defendant's only source of income was her monthly disability payments, but she and her husband owned a house free and clear. Relying on defendant's coownership of the house, the district court imposed a fine of $13,133.33, reasoning that defendant could pay this amount by selling the house or obtaining a loan. Defendant appealed the fine, arguing that it was procedurally unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Basurto" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Barnett served as Second Chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in 2013 and 2014. He pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to embezzling funds from the Tribe by appropriating to his own use money withdrawn from ATM machines. The sole issue on this appeal was whether the district court properly determined the amount of money embezzled for purposes of calculating Defendant’s offense level and the amount he owed the Tribe in restitution. Defendant argued that the court’s reliance on the presentence report (PSR) and Addendum was improper because the government failed to present at sentencing any evidence of the amount of loss. The Tenth Circuit disagreed: the district court could properly rely on the PSR and Addendum because Defendant did not adequately challenge their recitations of the evidence concerning his defalcations. The only issue that he preserved for appeal was whether the recited evidence sufficed to support the court’s determination of the amount of loss, and the Tenth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient. View "United States v. Barnett" on Justia Law

Appellant Ivan Bennett Willis was charged with aggravated sexual abuse committed in Indian country. Willis admitted he had sex with a seventeen-year-old acquaintance, K.M., and that the events occurred in Indian country. But Willis contended K.M. consented to the encounter. Thus, the only issue at trial was whether Willis used force against K.M. After a two-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Willis appealed, challenging multiple evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Willis" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Robert Holloway of four counts of wire fraud and one count of tax fraud. The charges against Holloway were the result of a scheme he created through his company, US Ventures, that defrauded over 250 investors and caused losses in excess of $15 million. Holloway began soliciting investors in 2005 by guaranteeing incredible returns in futures markets due to a mathematical algorithm he had created. When Holloway failed to realize the gains he promised, he started defrauding his investors by stating that his trading was profitable even though he lost substantial amounts of money, using money from new investors to pay other investors, and fabricating reports to investors stating that his daily returns were between 0 to 1.15% and that his trading never resulted in a loss. He also diverted investor funds for his own personal use. The district court sentenced Holloway to 225 months of imprisonment on all five counts. On appeal, Holloway argued: (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice; (2) the district court allowed impermissible victim impact testimony; (3) denied him his constitutional right to confront witnesses; and (4) improperly enhanced his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Holloway" on Justia Law

Pro se plaintiffs-appellees Kent and Tonya Mayfield brought this action against Deputy Jim Bethards under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming he violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by entering their property without a warrant with the intention of killing their two pet dogs. In the Complaint, the Mayfields alleged a witness observed that although neither dog acted aggressively, both officers began firing on the dogs once on the Mayfields’ property. Deputy Clark fired on Suka, the Mayfields’ brown dog, but missed as she fled to the back of the house. Deputy Bethards shot Majka, the Mayfields’ white Malamute Husky, three times, killing her on the front porch. The deputies then unsuccessfully searched for Suka behind the house, where she had disappeared into a wooded section of the Mayfields’ property. The Complaint further alleged that upon returning to the front yard, the deputies first moved Majka’s body in an apparent attempt to obscure that she had been shot on the Mayfields’ property and then tried to hide her body in a row of trees. Deputy Bethards raised a qualified-immunity defense and moved to dismiss the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court denied his motion and Deputy Bethards appeals. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Mayfield v. Bethards" on Justia Law