Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Johnny Delano was convicted in 1993 of armed bank robbery, sentenced to 262 months in prison, and ordered to pay $11,558 in restitution. The restitution was ordered pursuant to the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”). After Delano was released from prison, he began serving a five-year term of supervised release. Delano’s supervised release was revoked in 2017 and he was sentenced to serve an additional twenty-seven months’ incarceration. He was also ordered to pay the unpaid balance of the restitution imposed in 1993. Delano challenged the restitution portion of his current sentence, arguing his obligation to pay restitution under the VWPA expired twenty years after his original sentence was imposed and the plain language of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”) precluded the district court from reviving or reimposing restitution. The Tenth Circuit concluded, in light of the plain language of the MVRA, Congress clearly stated that the MVRA had only prospective application. The district court’s error was therefore plain, and the Court reversed the part of Delano’s sentence ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $5,159.59. View "United States v. Delano" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellants Guillermo Martinez-Torres and Jesus Gomez-Arzate entered conditional pleas of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, reserving a right to appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress physical evidence and statements made during a traffic stop. Each was sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, they contend that their initial traffic stop was invalid, the resulting detention was unlawfully extended and without valid consent, and the deputies’ search of their car exceeded the scope of consent. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "United States v. Gomez-Arzate" on Justia Law

In 2016, Officers Brandon Vick and Josh Girdner shot and killed Dominic Rollice. The administrator of Dominic’s estate brought a section 1983 claim against Officers Vick and Girdner, alleging they used excessive force against Dominic in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Officers Vick and Girdner on the basis of qualified immunity. The estate appealed. Finding a reasonable jury could have found facts under which Officers Vick and Girdner would not be entitled to qualified immunity, the Tenth Circuit reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bond v. City of Tahlequah" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Tignor pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. At the time he pled guilty, Tenth Circuit case law held a person would incur guilt by knowingly possessing a firearm after obtaining a felony conviction. Under this law, defendants would remain guilty even if they had not known that their prior convictions involved felonies. Soon after the guilty plea, the case law changed when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), which held the government needed to prove that the defendant knew his status prohibited possession of a firearm. Given that holding, in this case, the government needed t prove Tignor had known his prior conviction was punishable by more than a year in prison. Invoking Rehaif, Tignor asked the Tenth Circuit to vacate his guilty plea because he wasn’t told about the newly recognized element. For this issue, the parties agreed that the plain-error standard applied. Under this standard, the Tenth Circuit considered whether Tignor showed a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he’d known that the government needed to prove knowledge of his prohibited status. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Tignor lacked a plausible defense, and affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Tignor" on Justia Law

Deivy Romero-Lopez was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after being removed. The crime of illegal reentry begins when a noncitizen returns after removal and continues until he or she is “found” in the United States. The issue this case presented was not that Romero-Lopez was found in the U.S. after removal, but when he was found. The timing matters for his sentence because the Sentencing Commission dramatically increased the guideline ranges for individuals convicted of illegal reentry. The "starting point" for a sentence was the applicable starting guideline range. To determine that range, the district court needed to decide which annual version of the guidelines to use because the Sentencing commission changed the applicable provision in November 2016; the guideline ranges for illegal reentry sharply increased in November 2016. The new version of the guidelines would have applied only if Romero-Lopez's offense ended on or after the date of the change. Focusing on this increase, the parties disagreed over whether Romero-Lopez had been “found” before the change went into effect. The district court concluded that he had been found after the change, triggering the increased guideline range. Finding no reversible error in that conclusion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Romero-Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant Donovan Silva contended the district court erred in arriving at his sentence for possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon under the Sentencing Guidelines by concluding a prior assault conviction was a crime of violence. He argued the assault conviction was too old to have independently received criminal-history points under USSG sections 4A1.1 and 4A1.2 n.3(a). To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed: the Guidelines did not permit a section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement. The error met all four prongs of the plain-error analysis. Therefore, the Court reversed sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

Defendant Jessica Clark pleaded guilty to one count of child neglect in Indian Country. At sentencing, the district court concluded there were no sufficiently analogous Guidelines provision that applied to Clark's conviction, and consequently, it had to sentence her without reference to a specific Guidelines provision or advisory sentencing range. Clark received an 84-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Clark appealed, arguing the district court erred: (1) by not finding U.S.S.G. 2A2.3, the Sentencing Guidelines provision applicable to “Assault” offenses, was sufficiently analogous to her offense of conviction and therefore should have, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2X5.1, been applied by the district court to determine both an offense level and in turn an advisory Guidelines sentencing range; and (2) the district court plainly erred by failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence it imposed. The Tenth Circuit rejected Clark's first argument, but agreed with the second: there was no sufficiently analogous Guidelines provision, but an explanation of the reasons for the sentence ultimately imposed was warranted. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Floyd Henry, Jr. was convicted in the District of Minnesota, and after serving a term of imprisonment, absconded from the conditions of his supervised release. Henry's case was transferred to Colorado, and after a hearing for violations of supervision, the Colorado district court revoked his supervised release, sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment and a 120-month term of supervised release, and reimposed the special conditions initially imposed by the Minnesota court. The Colorado court indicated it could not change the special conditions another judge had imposed. Henry appealed the reimposition of the special conditions, arguing the district court erred by not making individualized assessments for them. The Tenth Circuit determined Henry failed to show this potential error justified vacating these special conditions. Thus, judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

This case arose from an eighteen-month investigation into a conspiracy to distribute large volumes of methamphetamine in Oklahoma City. The investigation culminated in a 125-count indictment charging ten individuals, including defendant-appellant Jose Sanchez. A jury would convict him of ten offenses relating to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, Sanchez argued the Tenth Circuit should have reversed his conviction because of a fatal variance between the conspiracy charged and the evidence presented at trial. According to Sanchez, while he bought drugs from members of the conspiracy on occasion, the evidence did not show he participated in the overarching drug conspiracy. The Tenth Circuit concluded that even if Sanchez was correct that a variance occurred here, it was not fatal: the evidence did not impair the jury's ability to evaluate the narrower conspiracy to which Sanchez was a party. Further, the Court affirmed the district court's sentence because the alleged drug calculation error had no effect on the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Marc Dutch pleaded guilty in 2016 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. In its presentence report, probation recommended that Dutch could be subject to a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA). At the sentencing hearing, the district court concluded the ACCA should not govern Dutch’s sentencing because the government had not met its burden of proving Dutch’s predicate crimes occurred on separate occasions. The federal government appealed the sentencing decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in an unpublished opinion, a panel concluded the ACCA applied because the government had proved by a preponderance of evidence that Dutch’s prior crimes “occurred on different dates and at different locations.” Prior to remand, Dutch pursued en banc review, raising much the same arguments, and then petitioned for relief before the United States Supreme Court. Both requests were denied. At resentencing, despite this history, the district court at defendant’s urging revisited the ACCA determination and concluded, once again, that it did not apply. The district court concluded the charging document and plea agreement the government offered to show Dutch committed his crimes on different occasions were inadequate to determine whether Dutch had actually committed the crimes on different occasions or simply committed one act of aiding and abetting. The court sentenced Dutch to a 60-month term of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. This appeal addressed the federal government’s challenge to the district court’s resentencing. The government insisted the district court violated the Tenth Circuit's directions for resentencing on remand by deciding, once again, that the ACCA did not apply to Dutch despite the Court's differing conclusion in "Dutch I." To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed: the district court disregarded the Tenth Circuit's clear mandate from Dutch I that the ACCA governed Dutch’s sentencing. The matter was reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Dutch" on Justia Law