Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Miguel Bustamante-Conchas was convicted on drug distribution charges and sentenced to 240 months in prison. At sentencing the district court found that Bustamante-Conchas was responsible for a significant amount of drugs and for a firearm in the possession of a co-conspirator, and then after a lengthy hearing sentenced him before he could speak on his behalf to the court. He appealed, challenging the district court’s factual findings at sentencing, as well as the court’s failure to allow him to allocute before sentencing. The Tenth Circuit concluded the factual findings were supported by the record and justified the eventual below-guideline sentence imposed by the trial court. Although the court should have allowed Bustamante-Conchas to allocute, any error was not plain. The Court therefore affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Bustamante-Conchas" on Justia Law

Walter Ackerman's internet service provider (ISP) had an automated filter designed to thwart transmission of child pornography. The filter identified one of four images attached to an email sent by Ackerman as pornography, immediately shut down his account, and forwarded a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC then alerted law enforcement. Ackerman would ultimately be investigated and indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography. Ackerman entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of NCMEC's investigation. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ackerman argued that NCMEC's actions amounted to an unreasonable search of his email and attachments because no one sought a warrant or invoked any lawful basis for failing to obtain one. "But the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches undertaken by the government or its agents — not private parties. So Mr. Ackerman’s motion raises the question: does NCMEC qualify as a governmental entity or agent?" Even if it did, it raised another question pertaining to a “private search:” the government doesn’t conduct a Fourth Amendment “search” when it merely repeats an investigation already conducted by a private party like AOL. So the ancillary issue raised was whether NCMEC simply repeated AOL's investigation, or did exceed the scope of AOL’s investigation. The district court denied Ackerman’s motion to suppress both because NCMEC was not a governmental actor and, alternatively and in any event, because NCMEC’s search didn’t exceed the scope of AOL’s private search. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with that conclusion, finding that NCMEC was indeed a governmental entity or agent and searched Ackerman's email without a warrant. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

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