Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Elias Amado appealed two district court decisions denying his respective motions for reduction of sentence. Defendant, an illegal immigrant, was caught in 2013 with lots of guns, ammunition, drugs, money, and other incriminating evidence. As part of his plea agreement, Defendant “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] his right to . . . move to modify under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) or some other ground, his sentence as imposed by the court[.]” Based on an offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of II, Defendant’s guideline range was 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment on the drug count. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment on that count and a concurrent term of 120 months’ imprisonment (the maximum allowable) on the illegal reentry count. Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, Defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. Subsequently, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines took effect on November 1, 2014. Despite his plea waiver, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. Three months after filing his first appeal, Defendant moved to “hold briefing in abeyance.” According to Defendant, the Government had decided not to oppose any subsequent motion he might make for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. The Tenth Circuit tolled briefing. With his first appeal still pending, Defendant returned to district court and again moved for a reduction of sentence. And again the district court denied the motion. This time, however, the court explained in a written order not only why it denied Defendant’s second motion but also his first motion: Defendant’s first motion did not present a close question. Turning to the second motion, the court initially questioned its jurisdiction over the motion, relied on "an obscure federal rule" to exercise jurisdiction, considered the second motion as one for a sentence reduction, then denied it. After review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's ruling on the first motion. Defendant’s second motion fell "within the very definition of a motion to reconsider," and the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in denying it. View "United States v. Amado" on Justia Law

In this case, Plaintiffs Jane Felix and B.N. Coone challenged the City of Bloomfield’s allowing the installation of a Ten Commandments monument on the City Hall Lawn. Two threshold issues raised were: (1) whether plaintiffs had standing; and (2) whether the monument was government speech subject to the limitations of the Establishment Clause. The Tenth Circuit found that plaintiffs suffered a legally sufficient injury to bring their claim in federal court, and that the First Amendment applied here. To downplay the religious overtones, City officials added several secular monuments next to the Ten Commandments to "dampen the effect of endorsement." The Tenth Circuit found that despite adding additional monuments, the inclusion of the Ten Commandments still violated the Establishment Clause: "The City has never explicitly said this Monument was not for religious purposes, nor that it was exhibited only for its historical significance. [. . .] In fact, [the City] has taken no public, purposeful, and persuasive action to distance itself from the sponsor and his message other than two ineffective disclaimers - one small, the other vague. The only meaningful public action Bloomfield undertook was to add secular monuments around the Ten Commandments." The Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the City impermissibly endorsed religion with its display of the Commandments, and the act was insufficiently mitigated by its curative efforts. View "Felix v. City of Bloomfield" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Ashley Tidzump was convicted of assault and requested an 18-month prison term, admitting an addiction to opiates and a need for treatment. Tidzump would have ordinarily qualified for the prison’s drug treatment program only if she began treatment with at least two years remaining on her sentence. The district court lengthened her prison sentence to 31 months. Though the sentence dipped below the guideline range, the sentence was long enough to allow Tidzump to become eligible for the prison’s drug treatment program. Tidzump appealed the sentence, presenting the issue for the Tenth Circuit’s review of whether the district court’s explanation for the sentence was permissible under “Tapia v. United States,” (564 U.S. 319 (2011)). In “Tapia,” the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court could not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the sentence was impermissible because the district court expressly lengthened the sentence for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation. View "United States v. Tidzump" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tremale Henry was on supervised release after term in prison when he got into an altercation with another man outside an Oklahoma City night club. At the probation revocation hearing that followed, the district court found Henry responsible for two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon. In the first assault, the court found that Henry swung a knife at his victim but missed. In the second assault an hour later, the court found that Henry struck again, this time successfully stabbing his victim. The court found each assault independently sufficient to warrant revocation of Henry’s supervised release. It then concluded that the two assaults, along with a third violation for lying to his probation officer, collectively warranted a new prison term of 24 months followed by six further years of supervised release. On appeal Mr. Henry argues that the district court erred by relying on hearsay in reaching its judgment. Finding only that the district court relied on hearsay for the second assault, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part, remanding for recalculation of Henry's sentence. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

In 2012, a grand jury indicted Frank Sharron Piper, III for participating in a cocaine conspiracy and other related offenses. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. Piper appealed the district court's denial of he motion for a sentence reduction based on retroactively applied Sentencing Guideline amendments. Piper argues the district court: (1) failed to address the policy arguments in his motion; (2) exceeded its statutory authority when it considered newly alleged presentencing conduct not addressed at the original sentencing; (3) made fact findings regarding a rap video he made (referencing those "who told on me" and "stop snitchin'") without holding a hearing; and (4) erroneously concluded Piper intended the video (posted online at YouTube) to be viewed by and construed as a threat to the cooperating witnesses. The Tenth Circuit found none of these arguments availing and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Piper" on Justia Law

Defendant Manuel Maldonado-Palma pled guilty to one count of illegally reentering or remaining in the United States after having been removed, excluded, or deported. Before sentencing, Maldonado objected to the recommendation in the Presentence Report (PSR) that his guideline base offense level be increased to reflect that he had a prior conviction for a crime of violence. The district court overruled his objection and, calculating the guideline range to be 77-96 months, sentenced Maldonado to 77 months in prison. On appeal, Maldonado argued the district court miscalculated the guidelines range, making his sentence procedurally unreasonable, because his prior New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault was not a “crime of violence” under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Finding no miscalculation of the sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Maldonado-Palma" on Justia Law

Two criminal cross-appeals stemmed from a physical altercation between Defendant Leslie Chapman and his then-wife, D.V. The altercation occurred in Veterans Administration (“VA”) housing where the couple was staying while Chapman recuperated from surgery. As a result of the altercation, the Government charged Chapman, under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act (“ACA”) with committing the New Mexico offense of aggravated assault on a household member, and a jury convicted him of that offense. In case No. 15-2143, Chapman challenged the district court’s decision to permit the Government’s expert witness, a certified sexual assault nurse examiner, to testify at trial that D.V.’s conduct in scratching herself across the chest after the altercation was consistent with conduct exhibited by sexual assault and domestic abuse victims to cope with the trauma they have experienced. In case No. 15-2173, the Government challenged Chapman’s sentence. Finding no reversible error in either case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Chapman" on Justia Law

Defendant Emanuel Godinez-Perez pleaded guilty to three criminal counts arising out of his role in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Godinez to a term of imprisonment of 108 months, to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Godinez appealed his sentence. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Godinez that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level and, in turn, his advisory Guidelines sentencing range. Specifically, the court erred in failing to make particularized findings regarding relevant conduct attributable to Godinez. Consequently, the Court remanded this case back to the district court with directions to vacate Godinez’s sentence and resentence him. View "United States v. Godinez-Perez" on Justia Law

The issue presented by this matter for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempted a Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship ("DPOC") for voter registration as applied to the federally-mandated voter-registration form that is part of any application to obtain or renew a driver's license. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Kansas DPOC requirements, holding that plaintiffs-appellees made a strong showing that the Kansas law was preempted by NVRA section 5. Defendant-appellant Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach appealed the district court’s entry of the preliminary injunction, which required him to register to vote any applicants previously unable to produce DPOC and to cease enforcement of Kansas’s DPOC requirement with respect to individuals who apply to register to vote at the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") through the "motor voter" process. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found after review that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because the NVRA preempted Kansas's DPOC law as enforced against those applying to vote while obtaining or renewing a driver's license. "Having determined that Secretary Kobach has failed to make this showing, we conclude that the DPOC required by Kansas law is more than the minimum amount of information necessary and, therefore, is preempted by the NVRA. We affirm the grant of a preliminary injunction." View "Fish v. Kobach" on Justia Law

The Court consolidated two cases in this opinion. Plaintiffs in both cases complained they were denied due process when the Board of County Commissioners of Elbert County (the Board) required them to rezone their properties before they could subdivide them. They argued that after the Board lost the documents reflecting the prior comprehensive zoning ordinance, it created new documents without following proper procedures for enacting an ordinance and covered up their misconduct. "Perhaps these allegations state a claim under Colorado law." After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that were not deprived of their right to due process under the United States Constitution. View "Onyx Properties v. Elbert Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law