Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Jesus Francisco Fernandez was convicted by jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The methamphetamine was discovered during a search at the Albuquerque Greyhound bus terminal of luggage on a bus on which Fernandez was a passenger. On appeal, Fernandez argued: (1) his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence that the luggage was his; (2) the search of the luggage by law-enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and (3) he was denied due process by Greyhound’s failure to record or preserve terminal surveillance video, allegedly as the agent of law-enforcement officers. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Fernandez's conviction. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant Angelita Benally was responsible for a head-on car crash that resulted in the death of her front seat passenger and severely injured the other driver. Benally was indicted on one count of involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Benally and the government entered into a written plea agreement, under the terms of which, Benally pleaded guilty to the involuntary manslaughter charge and the government dismissed the assault charge. The agreement also provided that the district court would order restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). The district court sentenced Benally to a term of imprisonment of thirty months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the district court ordered Benally to pay restitution pursuant to the MVRA to the deceased passenger’s family and to the other driver. Benally appealed the district court’s restitution order, arguing initially that the district court lacked authority under the MVRA to order her to pay restitution to the other driver because he was not a victim of the involuntary manslaughter offense. After the parties filed their appellate briefs, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). Benally argued that in light of Borden, the district court lacked authority to order restitution “under the MVRA at all,” and instead “may only grant restitution in its discretion under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). The Tenth Circuit found Benally failed to establish her entitlement to plain-error relief, and accordingly affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Benally" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant-appellant Jamshid Muhtorov on three counts of conspiring and providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union (“IJU”), a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda. On appeal, he argued the foreign intelligence surveillance methods the government used to collect his communications were unconstitutional. He also questioned the district court’s refusal to disclose the classified materials the government used to secure approvals for the surveillance, the types of surveillance techniques used, and the evidence derived therefrom. Finally, defendant claimed his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated. After careful consideration, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Muhtorov" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Bakhtiyor Jumaev and his co-defendant Jamshid Muhtorov were convicted, after separate trials, of conspiring to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (the Islamic Jihad Union, “IJU”), and knowingly providing or attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Both appealed, and, with the parties’ consent, the Tenth Circuit procedurally consolidated the cases. In an opinion issued concurrently with this one, the Court rejected Muhtorov’s claims, including his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim, and affirmed his convictions. In this decision, the Court addressed Jumaev’s claims: (1) his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated; (2) the district court abused its discretion by declining to severely sanction the government for its discovery conduct; and (3) the extraterritorial search warrants for his home, phone, and computer were issued in violation of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded that each of Jumaev’s claims failed, therefore affirming judgment. View "United States v. Jumaev" on Justia Law

The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico (“Albuquerque” or “the City”) enacted a city-wide ordinance that, in pertinent part, prohibited pedestrians from: (1) congregating within six feet of a highway entrance or exit ramp; (2) occupying any median deemed unsuitable for pedestrian use; and (3) engaging in any kind of exchange with occupants of a vehicle in a travel lane. Plaintiffs-Appellees, residents of Albuquerque who engaged in a variety of expressive activities (like panhandling, protesting, or passing out items to the needy), sued the City in federal court, alleging that the Ordinance impermissibly burdened the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The City argued the Ordinance was necessary to address persistent and troubling pedestrian safety concerns stemming from high rates of vehicular accidents throughout Albuquerque, and, in relation to this pressing interest, the Ordinance was narrowly tailored and did not burden substantially more speech than necessary. The district court disagreed, finding that those provisions of the Ordinance violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights because they were not narrowly tailored to the City’s interest in increasing pedestrian safety and, more specifically, reducing pedestrian-vehicle collisions. On appeal, the City argued the district court erred in concluding the Ordinance did not pass First Amendment muster, and it specifically focused on the question of narrow tailoring, arguing that the City did, indeed, appropriately tailor the Ordinance. After review, the Tenth Circuit rejected the City’s position, holding that the Ordinance was not narrowly tailored and, therefore, violated the First Amendment. View "Martin, et al. v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

In early 2019, a group of individuals called the United Constitutional Patriots (UCP) began camping along a 52-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border along the eastern edge of New Mexico, near El Paso, Texas. Defendant-Appellant James Benvie met this group and subsequently began posting videos on Facebook of the group’s attempts to capture aliens they contended were illegally crossing the border. While filming, Benvie was usually accompanied by members of the UCP who were often dressed in camouflage fatigues and carried firearms. In June 2019, Benvie was indicted based on two encounters with aliens that were captured on video, specifically, impersonating a government employee, for which he was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment and a year of supervised release. On appeal, Benvie argued the district court erred by: (1) instructing the jury that “U.S. Border Patrol” and “Border Patrol” were synonymous; (2) imposing five special conditions of supervised release without adequate explanation; and (3) imposing a mandatory condition of supervised release (drug testing) in the judgment and commitment order. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for reconsideration of the conditions of supervised release and removal of the mandatory condition of drug testing. View "United States v. Benvie" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Dave Wilson pled guilty to selling 1.54 grams of methamphetamine to a police confidential informant. Along the way, however, he confessed to purchasing 113 grams of methamphetamine. Deeming that entire quantity “relevant conduct,” the district court sentenced defendant based on the 113 grams he admitted to possessing, rather than the 1.54 grams he was caught selling. Defendant appealed his sentence, claiming he personally consumed most of the 113 grams, and only sold some of it to support his habit. Defendant argued any personal-use quantity was not relevant for sentencing, and that the government failed to prove how much of the 113 grams defendant personally consumed versus how much he sold. The Tenth Circuit agreed the personal-use quantity should be excludable in this context, but defendant had the burden of coming forward with evidence to establish a personal-use quantity. No such evidence was entered into the trial court record. Nevertheless, because defendant’s burden to come forward with evidence of personal use was unclear before this opinion, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded so that Wilson could have the opportunity to put on evidence of personal use pertaining to the quantities of meth charged. Defendant’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Mark Lantis set off on a day hike in Yellowstone National Park to search for buried treasure. He would get lost in the wilderness and was rescued by helicopter late the next day. Based on these events, a magistrate judge found Lantis guilty of a misdemeanor: reckless disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. 2.34(a)(4). Lantis appealed, arguing that the magistrate judge applied an objective standard for reckless conduct, without also assuring that the subjective component of recklessness was met. To this, the Tenth Circuit disagreed: "the magistrate judge did not apply only an objective standard; he simply relied on circumstantial evidence of Lantis’s state of mind and the obviousness of the risk to conclude that Lantis behaved recklessly by consciously disregarding a risk that he was aware of. Accordingly, we affirm." View "United States v. Lantis" on Justia Law

The estate of a mentally ill and intellectually disabled prisoner who committed suicide while in Utah Department of Corrections (“UDC”) custody appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against the UDC. Brock Tucker was seventeen when he was imprisoned at the Central Utah Correctional Facility (“CUCF”). At CUCF, Tucker endured long periods of punitive isolation. CUCF officials rarely let him out of his cell, and he was often denied recreation, exercise equipment, media, commissary, visitation, and library privileges. Tucker hanged himself approximately two years after his arrival at CUCF. Plaintiff-appellant Janet Crane was Tucker’s grandmother and the administrator of his estate. She sued on his estate’s behalf: (1) making Eighth Amendment claims against four prison officials (the “CUCF Defendants”); (2) making statutory claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act against UDC; and (3) making a claim under the Unnecessary Rigor Clause of the Utah Constitution against both the CUCF Defendants and UDC. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion, holding the CUCF Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal constitutional claims and the federal statutory claims did not survive Tucker’s death. As a result, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim. Finding no reversible error in the district court's dismissal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Crane v. Utah Department of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick LaJuan Jones, Jr. contended the Sentencing Commission did not intend to include state convictions based on a controlled substance not identified in the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to serve as predicate offenses when determining a defendant’s base-offense level under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(a)(4). Notwithstanding Application Note 1 of section 2K2.1(a)(4) directing to section 4B1.2(b), where the Guidelines defined “controlled substance offense,” Defendant claimed the Sentencing Commission intended to only include those controlled substances identified in the CSA. Based on a plain reading of section 4B1.2(b), the district court determined that the Sentencing Commission did not limit “controlled substance” to mean only substances identified in the CSA. Finding no error in that interpretation, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law