Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

Bigler Jobe Stouffer was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. The jury sentenced him to death for the murder charge. After his direct appeal and state post-conviction proceedings were unsuccessful, Stouffer filed for habeas relief in federal court, alleging a juror had improperly communicated with her husband about the case during the penalty phase of trial. In the preceding case, the Tenth Circuit held the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Stouffer’s claim of jury tampering. The case was therefore remanded to the district court to conduct a hearing and rule on Stouffer’s claim. Based on evidence presented at a day-long evidentiary hearing, the district court determined Stouffer’s right to an impartial jury had not been violated and denied his habeas application. Stouffer appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Stouffer v. Duckworth" on Justia Law

Defendant Almundo Cruz Singer pleaded guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter in Indian country, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seventy-five months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Singer’s offense of conviction stems from his involvement in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 9, 2014, in Church Rock. Marvin Ahasteen and his wife were walking from their Church Rock residence that day to eat lunch at the Fire Rock Casino, which is located on the north side of New Mexico State Highway 118. The couple jogged across the lanes of State Highway 118 and, as they did so, Mrs. Ahasteen "jogged in front of her husband" and "reached the [north] side of the highway." At that moment, Mrs. Ahasteen "heard her husband exclaim 'oh sh[it]' and turned to see him hit by a white car driving westbound” on State Highway 118. Mr. Ahasteen was decapitated as a result of the accident, his "left leg was dismembered at the proximal tibia and fibula," and his "body parts, blood and clothing were scattered over a distance of approximately 274 feet,” As a result of the force of impact, "all of [Mr. Ahasteen’s] clothes were removed, aside from his underwear that came down to his knees and his right sock." Singer appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Singer" on Justia Law

New Mexico Rule of Professional Conduct 16-308(E) prohibited a prosecutor from subpoenaing a lawyer to present evidence about a past or present client in a grand-jury or other criminal proceeding unless such evidence was “essential” and “there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information.” In a lawsuit brought against the New Mexico Supreme Court and the state’s Disciplinary Board and Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the United States claimed that the enforcement of this rule against federal prosecutors licensed in New Mexico violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Rule 16-308(E) was preempted with respect to federal prosecutors practicing before grand juries, but was not preempted outside of the grand-jury context. With this conclusion, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. NM Supreme Court" on Justia Law