Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A confidential informant visited defendant-appellant Gaspar Leal and asked about buying drugs. Leal put the confidential informant in touch with several individuals, and the informant ultimately purchased methamphetamine twice from a third party (Daniel Carmona). These purchases led to Leal’s conviction for conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to a thirty-year prison term. Leal appealed his conviction and sentence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding: (1) the jury could reasonably find that Leal had known that the conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of methamphetamine; (2) Leal did not establish that the government’s conduct was clearly and obviously outrageous; and (3) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable: Leal’s crime carried a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison, and the district court reasonably considered Leal’s status as a career offender and his mental illnesses. View "United States v. Leal" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Holzer was arrested and criminally charged after federal undercover agents determined that Holzer had taken substantial steps towards bombing a synagogue in Pueblo, Colorado. Holzer subsequently pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of intentionally attempting to obstruct persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs through force, and one count of maliciously attempting to damage and destroy, by means of fire and explosives, a synagogue. The district court sentenced Holzer to a term of imprisonment of 235 months, to be followed by a fifteen-year term of supervised release. The district court also ordered Holzer to comply with eleven special conditions of supervised release, including Special Condition Nine, that prohibited him from acquiring, possessing, or using any material depicting support for or association with antisemitism or white supremacy. Holzer appealed, arguing that the district court erred in imposing Special Condition Nine. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Holzer’s challenge to Special Condition Nine was barred by the appellate waiver provision of his plea agreement. Consequently, his appeal was dismissed. View "United States v. Holzer" on Justia Law

Three out of four defendants in consolidated cases identified as minorities, and two were illegal immigrants. They claimed the district court abused its discretion in failing to ask the potential jurors whether they harbored racist views. One defendant posited that if “America as an institution harbors racial prejudice in the context of immigration law, it stands to reason that some members of that same institution also harbor similar views.” But the Supreme Court had long held that no constitutional presumption of juror bias existed for or against members of any particular racial or ethnic groups. The Tenth Circuit declined to create such a presumption in these cases, finding that without any substantial indication that racial or ethnic prejudice likely affected the jurors, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ requests to directly examine the jurors about the subject. View "United States v. Murry" on Justia Law

In deciding defendant-appellant Ira Wilkins' sentence for unlawfully possessing a firearm, the district court considered the effect of Wilkins’ prior conviction in Texas for aggravated robbery. The district court characterized this offense as a “crime of violence” under the sentencing guidelines, which increased the base-offense level. Wilkins appealed, arguing for the first time that the district court shouldn’t have considered aggravated robbery as a crime of violence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

At defendant-appellant Jamaryus Moore’s initial sentencing hearing, the court offered him a choice: (1) an immediate 51-month sentence of imprisonment; or (2) a 48-month sentence of probation, subject to at least 84 months’ imprisonment for any future probation violation. Moore took the second option, and for over a year, upheld his end of the bargain. Moore admitted to some conditions of his probation, and the district court made good on its promise to sentence him to 84 months’ imprisonment. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court’s sentencing bargain was procedurally unreasonable. After review, the Court held that it was: when revoking probation and resentencing under section 3565(a)(2), the Sentencing Guidelines and United States v. Kelley (359 F.3d 1302) (10th Cir. 2004) required district courts to undertake a two-step analysis. The Court determined nothing in the district court's record suggested either the trial court nor the parties undertook the needed two-step analysis. "We are left to guess as to how the district court arrived at its 84-month sentence." The Court ultimately found Moore showed the district court plainly erred when it sentenced him, making the sentence-in-advance feature procedurally unreasonable. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

This case arose from a jail fight that started when an inmate learned that another inmate “snitched.” Based on the fight, the government charged two inmates, Derrick Segue and Klawaun Sutton, with conspiring to tamper with a witness in a federal proceeding. Defendants moved for acquittal, arguing the evidence was insufficient as to their contemplation of a legal proceeding that was likely to be federal. The motion was denied and they were convicted. The Tenth Circuit reversed, however, finding that Sutton and Segue intended to interfere with a state proceeding. "There was nothing to suggest [they] had contemplated the witness' participation in a possible federal proceeding or a proceeding reasonably likely to become federal." View "United States v. Sutton" on Justia Law

In 2004, Defendant-appellant Tony Burris pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and the district court sentenced him to 262 months in prison, the low end of his sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which addressed sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, and made those changes retroactive in the First Step Act of 2018, Burris moved for a reduced sentence. The government opposed the motion, arguing that Burris’s Guidelines range remained the same because the calculation should have been based on the larger quantity of crack cocaine attributed to Burris in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) rather than the smaller amount charged in the indictment. Recognizing that the parties raised an issue that had not yet been addressed by the Tenth Circuit, the district court declined to resolve it, instead exercising its discretion to deny relief regardless of the correct Guidelines calculation. The Tenth Circuit held the district court was obligated to calculate Burris’s revised Guidelines range before exercising its discretion to deny relief, and that the error was not harmless. Judgment was therefore reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Burris" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Charles Chavez was accused of attempting to force two individuals to withdraw their money from a bank automated teller machine (“ATM”) at gunpoint. The district court dismissed these charges, reasoning that, had the accountholders completed the withdrawal as intended, Chavez would have taken the money from them, as opposed to from the bank that operated the ATM. The Tenth Circuit found the district court’s decision aligned with the Fifth Circuit’s approach to this issue, but conflicted with the Seventh Circuit’s. The Tenth Circuit sided with the Seventh Circuit: "Using force to induce a bank customer to withdraw money from an ATM is federal bank robbery, so Chavez cannot show that the government is incapable of proving that his specific conduct amounted to attempted federal bank robbery." Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant John Michael McIntosh pled guilty to five counts of robbery, plus three counts of brandishing a pistol during those five robberies. During the change-in-plea hearing held by the district court, however, McIntosh repeatedly expressed doubts about whether he should plead guilty and suggested that his mental capacity was impaired. After off-the-record discussions with the government, he finally went forward with the plea and the district court completed its plea colloquy. But two months after entering the plea, McIntosh moved to withdraw it, contending that the plea was neither knowing nor voluntary and therefore violated his constitutional due process rights. The district court denied the motion and accepted the plea agreement at sentencing. McIntosh appealed, arguing that the plea was constitutionally invalid, and in the alternative, that the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea was an abuse of discretion. After review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court failed to ensure the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, so it vacated McIntosh’s convictions and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

Wayne Bowker died at the Carter County Jail on June 30, 2016, while awaiting trial for a drug possession charge. In the days and weeks preceding his death, Bowker did not receive several of his prescribed medications, experienced incontinence and catatonia, and was able to communicate with jail staff only by using strange repetitive phrases. Despite Bowker’s condition, jail officials failed to provide any medical attention in the nineteen days leading up to his death. His mother, Judy Prince, as the administrator of his estate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and other claims. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to jail nurse Kimberlee Miller in her individual capacity, and whether it properly granted summary judgment to the Sheriff of Carter County in his official capacity. The Court concluded a reasonable jury could determine Miller violated Bowker’s constitutional right by acting with deliberate indifference toward his psychosis, incontinence, and catatonia. In addition, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Carter County’s failure to medically train jail employees, adequately staff the jail, and provide timely medical attention caused Bowker’s death. The Court reversed district court’s grants of summary judgment. View "Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County, et al." on Justia Law