Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Robert Snyder pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm. The issue here was whether a prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter was a "crime of violence" as defined by section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in "Beckles v. United States," (No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781, at *6 (S. Ct. Mar. 6, 2017)), where the court rejected a vagueness challenge to the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2), defendant conceded that voluntary manslaughter was a crime of violence, and the district court correctly applied the Guidelines in this case. View "United States v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Monica Pompeo, a student in a graduate-level course at the University of New Mexico (“UNM”), claimed that UNM officials retaliated against her in violation of her free speech rights because they disagreed with viewpoints she expressed in an assigned class paper. In "Axson-Flynn v. Johnson," (356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004)), the Tenth Circuit held courts may not override an educator’s decision in the school-sponsored speech context “unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment” and instead used “the proffered goal or methodology [as] a sham pretext for an impermissible ulterior motive.” Here, Pompeo asked the Tenth Circuit to draw an analogy between the religious discrimination at issue in "Axson-Flynn" and the viewpoint discrimination she complained of in this case. "Yet our court has specifically held that precedent 'allows educators to make viewpoint-based decisions about school-sponsored speech' and may restrict speech they believe contains 'inflammatory and divisive statements.'" Finding no reversible error in the district court's grant of summary judgment to UNM, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Pompeo's case. View "Pompeo v. Board of Regents" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Damion Tittle pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms. This crime carried a maximum sentence of 10 years, but the Government argued defendant's sentence should have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). The enhancement would apply for mandatory minimum term of 15 years when a defendant had “three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both.” The district court concluded defendant had three qualifying offenses and sentenced him to a prison term of 188 months, more than 15 years. On appeal, defendant argued he was not subject to an ACCA-enhanced sentence because one of his three prior convictions was not a qualifying offense. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Titties" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Keighton Budder was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of several violent nonhomicide crimes committed when he was sixteen years old. After sentence modification on direct appeal, he received three life sentences and an additional sentence of twenty years, all to run consecutively. He was not be eligible for parole under Oklahoma law until he served 131.75 years in prison. Budder filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. In support, he cited “Graham v. Florida,” (560 U.S. 48 (2010)), which held that sentencing juvenile offenders who have not committed homicide crimes to life in prison without a meaningful opportunity for release was unconstitutional. The district court denied Budder’s petition, and he appeals. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Budder’s petition. The Court found under the categorical rule clearly established in “Graham,” Budder’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. “The [Oklahoma Supreme Court’s] judgment was contrary to this clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Budder’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, to vacate Budder’s sentence, and to direct the State of Oklahoma to resentence Budder within a reasonable period.” View "Budder v. Addison" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Wireman, a frequent sexual offender who pled guilty to counts of possessing and distributing child pornography, argued his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not specifically address and reject his arguments for a downward variance from his within-Guidelines sentence. The question this case presented for the Tenth Circuit’s review was whether the particular argument he made to the district court—namely, that the Guideline under which he was sentenced was inherently flawed on policy grounds—warranted an exception to a long-held rule that the district court was not required to explicitly address and reject his arguments in such an instance. “But no matter how inherently fluid this area of law may be, we have held time and time again that a district court does not run astray of its duty to ‘consider[] the parties’ arguments’ simply because it does not directly address those arguments head-on—assuming, that is, that the district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence.” Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Wireman" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven John was convicted by jury on one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country. On appeal Defendant argued: (1) that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and his right to present a complete defense by restricting his cross-examination of the victim; (2) that several of the jury instructions regarding assessment of the evidence were improper; and (3) that the district court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. John" on Justia Law

Defendants Adrienne Lopez and Angela Lopez (not related) apealed their convictions and sentences on charges of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to do so. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did not address most of their arguments because the Court agreed with them that the methamphetamine found in their car had to be suppressed: they were properly stopped because Angela was speeding, but the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to continue their detention to obtain a drug-detection dog after he issued Angela a warning and Defendants refused to consent to a search of their vehicle. As alternative grounds for affirming the admission of the evidence, the government argued: (1) that Adrienne could not complain of the search because it was not a fruit of her detention; and (2) that the continued detention was lawful anyway because there was probable cause to arrest Angela for driving without a license. The Court rejected both arguments: the search of the vehicle was based on the dog’s alert to marijuana in Adrienne’s purse and the police dispatcher informed the officer on the scene that Angela had a valid license. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant David Thomas appealed his conviction by jury of four counts of robbery. On appeal, he challenged: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence on Count 1; (2) an in-court identification; and (3) the denial of his motion to sever the Count 1 robbery charge from the other robbery counts. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant’s conviction. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendants in these consolidated appeals pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute “crack” cocaine. Because Defendants each had a prior felony drug conviction, they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. This mandatory minimum sentence was greater than the high end of Defendants’ respective advisory guideline ranges, so 20 years became Defendants’ “guideline sentence.” Due to their substantial assistance to the Government in its investigation or prosecution of others, however, the district court granted Defendants a downward departure pursuant to a statutory exception to their statutorily-mandated minimum sentence. The district court reduced C.D.’s sentence from 240 months to 180 months, E.F.’s sentence from 240 months to 170 months, and G.H.’s sentence from 240 months to 151 months. Defendants claimed 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) provided an additional statutory exception to their original 20-year mandatory minimum sentence, and so unsuccessfully moved the district court to further reduce their sentences. After Defendants’ sentencings, the Sentencing Commission lowered by two offense levels the guideline sentencing ranges under which Defendants would have been sentenced but for 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)’s mandatory minimum sentence. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, in particular "United States v. White," (765 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2014)), Defendants were not “sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Rather, the district court sentenced Defendants “based on” a mandatory minimum established by Congress of 20-years’ imprisonment, reduced by a departure as authorized by Congress “so as to reflect [their] substantial assistance.” As such, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s decisions denying Defendants’ respective motions and, consistent with controlling precedent, remanded with instructions to dismiss the motions for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Bruce Wright of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and of eleven counts of bank fraud arising from his participation in a scheme to submit false draw requests and invoices to obtain bank loans. The district court sentenced Wright to thirty-three months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay over $1 million in restitution. Wright raised several issues on appeal, concerning jury instructions, withheld impeachment evidence, and bank loss and restitution amounts. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law