Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

Brayan Alexis Osuna-Gutierrez was arrested in Kansas. He was a passenger in a rental vehicle on a cross-country trip. The police found approximately seven grams of marijuana belonging to Gutierrez that he had legally purchased in Colorado. Police also found approximately three kilograms of methamphetamine in the rear portion of the car. The government charged Gutierrez and his co-defendants with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Gutierrez ultimately pled guilty to “Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute" (the government dropped the methamphetamine charges). The district court sentenced him to time served, approximately seven months. After leaving jail, Gutierrez was immediately transferred to immigration custody and served with Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (the expedited removal process). During the removal process, an officer within DHS concluded that Gutierrez was not a legal permanent resident, having come to the United States from Mexico with his mother when he was one year old without being legally admitted. Further, Gutierrez had pled guilty to an aggravated felony. Gutierrez timely petitioned for review of his removal and was deported back to Mexico. Gutierrez argued his deportation was improper because: (1) the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) expedited removal process is illegal; and (2) in any event, it was improper for DHS to use the expedited removal process on Gutierrez because he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, not a felony. The Tenth Circuit found Gutierrez was wrong on both counts, and denied Gutierrez's petition for review. View "Osuna-Gutierrez v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Constantine Golicov, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order concluding that his Utah state conviction for failing to stop at a police officer’s command rendered him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The specific provision of the INA that served as grounds for removal provided that an alien is subject for removal if that person commits an "aggravated felony." The INA defined the term "aggravated felony" to include "crimes of violence." Petitioner argued to the Tenth Circuit that "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague. After review of the Supreme Court precedent of "Johnson v. United States," (135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)), and applying that case to the facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the INA's term was indeed vague. The order of removal was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Golicov v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jesus Domingo Martinez-Cruz appealed the district court’s twelve-level enhancement of his sentence under United States Sentencing Guideline (the Guidelines) section 2L1.2, Application Note 5, for his previous conviction for Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute. Defendant argued that this was error, because Application Note 5 used the term “conspiring” without defining it, thus the categorical approach should have applied. Because the generic definition of conspiracy required an overt act while his conviction under 21 U.S.C. 846 did not, defendant argued, his previous conviction was not a categorical match for the generic definition of “conspiracy” and he should therefore have received only an eight-level enhancement for a prior aggravated felony conviction. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Cruz" on Justia Law

While responding to an early-morning 911 call, Officer Blaine Parnell of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, attempted to arrest Jakota Wolfname on two outstanding tribal warrants. Parnell ordered Wolfname to put his hands behind his back; instead, Wolfname ran away. As the result of his flight from Parnell and the ensuing scuffle, a grand jury indicted Wolfname for “knowingly and forcibly assault[ing], resist[ing], and interfer[ing] with” Parnell while Parnell “was engaged in the performance of his official duties, which resulted in bodily injury to . . . Parnell.” The jury found Wolfname guilty of resisting and interfering with Parnell in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 111(a)(1). It also found that Wolfname made physical contact with Parnell. But the jury wrote, “No,” next to the assault option on the verdict form. And despite testimony from Parnell and his orthopedic surgeon indicating that Parnell suffered damage to a ligament in his thumb during the struggle, the jury also declined to find that Wolfname inflicted bodily injury on Parnell. The district court imposed a 24-month prison sentence. Wolfname appealed. In this case, the parties asked the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether assault was an element of every conviction under 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1). The Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury it had to find Wolfname assaulted Parnell. This error was plain error, and warranted reversal. View "United States v. Wolfname" on Justia Law