Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Andy Nahkai was charged with two counts of abusive sexual contact with a child and one count of abusive sexual contact with a child aged 12-16, all occurring within Indian country. During the investigation, Nahkai made incriminating statements to law enforcement officers while being interviewed in an unlocked police vehicle parked outside his home. The officers did not administer Miranda warnings before the interview.The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Nahkai’s motion to suppress the statements he made during the interview. The court concluded that the interrogation was custodial, and the statements were not voluntary under the Fifth Amendment. The court based its decision on the officers' failure to inform Nahkai that he was free to leave, the accusatory nature of the questioning, and the police-dominated atmosphere of the encounter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Nahkai was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona. The court found that the totality of the circumstances did not support the conclusion that Nahkai’s freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. The court noted that Nahkai was not physically restrained, the vehicle doors were unlocked, and the questioning, although accusatory, was not unusually confrontational. The court reversed the district court’s order suppressing Nahkai’s statements and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Nahkai" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Dante Peppers, was convicted in 2023 for conspiring to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it and for using a communication facility to facilitate the conspiracy. The investigation began in 2019 and 2020, focusing on Tyrone Millsap, who was distributing methamphetamine in Kansas. Peppers was implicated through Facebook Messenger communications and involvement in methamphetamine sales arranged by Millsap. Peppers was also found to have been involved in a traffic stop where methamphetamine was found.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas tried Peppers, and the jury convicted him of conspiracy and using a communication facility to facilitate the conspiracy. However, the jury acquitted him of two counts of distributing methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Peppers to sixty months in prison for the conspiracy charge and forty-eight months for the communication facility charge, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Peppers argued that the superseding indictment's conspiracy count was constructively amended at trial and that the district court abused its discretion in excluding a defense investigator’s hearsay testimony. The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was no constructive amendment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the hearsay testimony. The court affirmed Peppers' 2023 convictions.Additionally, Peppers challenged the revocation of his supervised release for a 2016 felon-in-possession conviction, which was based on his 2023 drug-trafficking convictions. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Peppers' supervised release, even though the term expired before the conclusion of the 2023 prosecution, as the delay was reasonably necessary. The court affirmed the revocation of Peppers' supervised release. View "United States v. Peppers" on Justia Law

Perry Maryboy was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Antonio Montowine. The incident occurred on April 13, 2018, near Bluff, Utah. Maryboy claimed the shooting was accidental, occurring when his firearm discharged prematurely as he attempted to fire a warning shot. The government argued that Maryboy intentionally shot Montowine in the back of the head or acted with extreme recklessness.The United States District Court for the District of Utah presided over Maryboy's trial. Initially, a mistrial was declared due to Covid-19 complications. In a subsequent trial, the jury found Maryboy guilty of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Maryboy was sentenced to 180 months for the murder and an additional mandatory 120 months for the firearm charge. Maryboy appealed, arguing that the government’s expert witness improperly opined on his mental state and that the district court failed to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the expert witness's testimony violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by opining on Maryboy's mental state, which could have influenced the jury's decision on the degree of recklessness. Additionally, the court determined that the jury instructions were flawed because they did not require the government to disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for the second-degree murder charge. These errors were deemed to have affected Maryboy's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings.The Tenth Circuit reversed Maryboy's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of proper jury instructions and adherence to evidentiary rules. View "United States v. Maryboy" on Justia Law

Barry Jackson was convicted of illegally possessing two firearms as a domestic violence misdemeanant. After his conviction, but before pleading guilty, he was found with three additional firearms, one of which had a large-capacity magazine. Jackson challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Jackson's motion to declare § 922(g)(9) unconstitutional. Jackson then pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. At sentencing, the court determined that Jackson's possession of firearms on two separate occasions constituted relevant conduct, leading to a higher advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Jackson was sentenced to 72 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 922(g)(9) is constitutional as applied to Jackson, consistent with the principles established in United States v. Rahimi and United States v. Rogers. The court found that Jackson's prior domestic violence convictions demonstrated a propensity for violence, justifying his disarmament under § 922(g)(9). The court also upheld the district court's determination that Jackson's possession of additional firearms was relevant conduct, supporting the sentence imposed.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction and sentence, concluding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A motorist on Interstate 10 near Deming, New Mexico, reported a man in the median with a firearm who may have fired shots. Police officers encountered Gilbert Valencia in a nearby mesquite field, matching the description and holding what appeared to be an AR-style rifle. Valencia did not consistently comply with officers' commands and moved his hand on the weapon, prompting five officers to shoot him. Valencia died from his wounds. His estate brought federal and state law claims against the City of Deming, individual officers, Luna County, and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment for the officers, asserting qualified immunity, and dismissed the Estate’s claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The Estate appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their use of lethal force was objectively reasonable based on the circumstances. The court found that the Estate failed to identify a dispute of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the state law claims. The court held that the officers' actions were reasonable given the perceived threat and the totality of the circumstances, including Valencia's non-compliance and the officers' belief that he was armed and dangerous. The court also determined that the New Mexico Tort Claims Act did not apply to the City of Deming, as it only applies to law enforcement officers. View "Cruz v. City Of Deming" on Justia Law

Craig Gordon and Ronald Darnell Brown were each indicted for possession of a firearm while subject to a court order that explicitly prohibited the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. Gordon had threatened his ex-partner and caused minor injuries to his daughter, leading to a protective order against him. Brown had violently attacked his girlfriend, resulting in a protective order that also prohibited him from possessing firearms. Both were found in possession of firearms after these orders were issued.The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied their motions to dismiss the indictments, which argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) was facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The defendants then entered conditional pleas, preserving their rights to appeal the district court’s decisions. After sentencing, they appealed, and their appeals were abated pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the appeals were resumed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the statute is constitutional in some of its applications, particularly when a protective order is issued based on a judicial determination that the individual poses a threat of physical violence. The court emphasized that the statute aims to mitigate demonstrated threats of physical violence and does not broadly restrict arms use by the public. The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Omari Davis was convicted in 2019 under Colorado law for possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance, which turned out to be baking soda. This offense is classified as a level-4 drug felony, the lowest level in Colorado, with a presumptive sentencing range of six months to one year. However, under certain aggravating circumstances, the sentence could be extended to a maximum of two years. Davis was sentenced to two years of probation, with no aggravating circumstances identified or admitted.In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Davis was indicted in 2022 on two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Davis moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that his 2019 conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense under § 922(g)(1) because it carried a presumptive maximum sentence of one year. The district court denied his motion, concluding that Colorado courts always have the discretion to impose a sentence greater than the presumptive range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis's 2019 conviction did not meet the prior-conviction requirement of § 922(g)(1) because there were no aggravating circumstances in the record that could have permitted a sentence exceeding one year. The court emphasized that under Colorado law, a sentence in the aggravated range requires specific findings of aggravating circumstances, which were absent in Davis's case. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit vacated Davis's conviction under § 922(g)(1). View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

J.H. participated in an employee welfare-benefit plan insured by Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, with her son, A.H., as a beneficiary. After seeking benefits for A.H.'s yearlong stay at a mental-health treatment center, Anthem denied coverage, and Plaintiffs' appeal to Anthem was unsuccessful. Over a year after their final appeal through Anthem was decided, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to recover benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the action, concluding it was time-barred under a provision of the Plan that required civil actions under ERISA § 502(a) to be brought within one year of the grievance or appeal decision. Plaintiffs argued that another sentence in the Plan set a three-year limitations period, creating an ambiguity that should be interpreted in their favor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the two provisions were not inconsistent and both applied. The court explained that the one-year limitations period for § 502(a) actions and the three-year limitations period for other actions were distinct and could both be applicable. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that Plaintiffs' action was time-barred as it was filed beyond the one-year limitations period specified in the Plan. View "J.H. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance" on Justia Law

Defendant Xavier Zamora, then seventeen, shot and killed Jose Hernandez, a U.S. postal worker, during a domestic dispute with his mother. The United States charged Zamora as a juvenile under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA). The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico certified that there was a substantial federal interest in the case, allowing for federal jurisdiction. Zamora was transferred to adult status and pleaded guilty to Second Degree Murder of a U.S. Employee and Possessing a Firearm in Furtherance of Such Crime.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico accepted the certification and the transfer to adult status. Zamora pleaded guilty to the charges. On appeal, Zamora challenged the certification, arguing that no substantial federal interest existed and that the certification was facially deficient, thus the district court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the U.S. Attorney's certification of a substantial federal interest under the JDA is an unreviewable act of prosecutorial discretion. The court noted that the plain language of the JDA does not require the Attorney General to identify a specific substantial federal interest, only to certify that such an interest exists. The court joined the majority of other circuits in holding that the certification is not subject to judicial review. The court affirmed the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, finding the certification facially valid as it stated that there was a substantial federal interest in the charges. View "United States v. Zamora" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States, which under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) carries a maximum sentence that depends on the defendant’s criminal history. Without a prior felony, the maximum is two years; with a prior felony, it is ten years; and with an aggravated felony, it is twenty years. The defendant had two prior felony convictions, but neither was for an aggravated felony. However, the government and probation office mistakenly assumed one conviction was for an aggravated felony, suggesting a twenty-year maximum.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sentenced the defendant, possibly under the mistaken belief that the statutory maximum was twenty years. The defendant did not object to this error at the time. On appeal, both parties agreed that the correct statutory maximum was ten years, not twenty. The defendant argued that this error should be presumed prejudicial, while the government contended that the defendant must show actual prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government, stating that the defendant must show prejudice from the error. The court noted that other circuits have similarly required defendants to demonstrate prejudice in such situations. The court found no evidence that the district court’s error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, as the 42-month sentence was well below the correct ten-year maximum and at the bottom of the guideline range. The court concluded that the defendant did not show that the error had a substantial impact on his sentence and affirmed the 42-month sentence. View "United States v. Calderon-Padilla" on Justia Law