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

Petitioner Aaron Sandusky, a federal prisoner then-serving a 120-month sentence in connection with two marijuana-trafficking convictions, filed a petition for habeas relief, asserting that a congressional appropriations rider prevented the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from expending any funds to incarcerate him during the applicable time period of the appropriations rider. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the proper vehicle for Sandusky’s claim was a motion filed in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Sandusky appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was mistaken, and that a motion filed pursuant to section 2241 was the proper vehicle for the relief that Sandusky sought. Consequently, it reversed the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sandusky v. Goetz" on Justia Law

Feuu Fagatele appealed his 46-month prison sentence, arguing the district court erred in classifying Utah third-degree aggravated assault as a crime of violence under section 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). Fagatele pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based in part on Fagatele’s 2013 Utah conviction for third-degree aggravated assault, an offense the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) classified as a crime of violence, the PSR calculated a base offense level of 20. Fagatele objected, arguing in relevant part that third-degree aggravated assault did not constitute a crime of violence under the federal guideline 4B1.2(a)’s elements clause. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded third-degree aggravated assault “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Accordingly, it affirmed Fagatele’s sentence. View "United States v. Fagatele" on Justia Law

Prison Legal News (“PLN”) published a monthly magazine to help inmates navigate the criminal justice system. Between January 2010 and April 2014, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) rejected the distribution of 11 publications PLN sent to inmate subscribers at the BOP’s United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado (“ADX”). PLN sued the BOP, claiming the rejections violated PLN’s First Amendment rights, its Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). ADX responded by distributing the 11 publications, revising its institutional policies, and issuing a declaration from its current Warden. Based on these actions, the BOP moved for summary judgment, arguing that PLN’s claims were moot or not ripe. PLN filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on its First and Fifth Amendment claims. The district court granted the BOP’s motion and dismissed the case as moot. The Tenth Circuit determined factual developments during the litigation indeed mooted PLN’s claims. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the BOP and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Prison Legal News v. Federal Bureau of Prisons" on Justia Law

Nicholas Davis was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of first-degree murder, for which he was sentenced to death. He sought federal habeas relief. In relevant part, he asserted that both trial counsel and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective in failing to adequately investigate his mental health and discover that he suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Specifically, in Davis' trial PTSD claim, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate, develop, and present evidence, at both the guilt and sentencing stages, that he suffered from PTSD. In his appellate PTSD claim, he alleged that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate, develop, and raise this aspect of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness on appeal. He further argued that appellate counsel was likewise ineffective in failing to investigate and present “[a] complete mental[-]health claim . . . on appeal.” The district court ruled that these claims (regarding depression) were unexhausted and subject to an anticipatory procedural bar. The Tenth Circuit, however, affirmed denial of habeas relief. The Court found Davis' Depression Claims were subject to an anticipatory procedural bar. And because the Appellate PTSD Claim lacked merit, it did not excuse the procedural default of the Trial PTSD Claim or constitute an independent basis for granting the writ. Furthermore, the Court denied Davis’s request for an expanded COA to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on three additional claims he presented in his section 2254 petition because reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s resolution of those claims. View "Davis v. Sharp" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant–Appellant Kevin Leffler guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, possessing with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possessing an unregistered firearm. Defendant appealed only his conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, arguing the Government presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of this offense. Because Defendant waived his only asserted ground for appeal, the Tenth Circuit declined to address the merits of his claim. View "United States v. Leffler" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Derrick Williams pled guilty to transportation of child pornography, and possession of child pornography, reserving his right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress. Williams, an American citizen, boarded an international flight bound for Denver International Airport (DIA). Once on the ground, he proceeded to customs where his passport triggered multiple “lookout” alerts in the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) enforcement system. The alerts instructed CBP officers to escort Williams to DIA’s secondary screening area where he was met by a Homeland Security Special Agent. Authorities had not linked Williams to any terrorist activity, he was known to them for previous felony convictions involving weapons possession charges, trespass and fraud. At the close of the interview, the Agent Allen explained to Williams that his electronic devices, a laptop and a smartphone, would be searched. He asked for the devices’ passwords, which Williams refused to give. His electronics were taken to be returned to Williams later. In bypassing the device passwords, investigators discovered a folder containing child pornography. A search warrant was issued authorizing a full forensic search. The search ultimately yielded thousands of images and videos of child pornography. Williams was indicted and moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his laptop on grounds that it was tainted by the search conducted prior to the issuance of the search warrant. He argued that the agents needed reasonable suspicion for this kind of search and that, because they did not have it, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The government countered that the Fourth Amendment allowed for suspicionless searches at the border and that, even if reasonable suspicion were required, they had ample reason to suspect that Williams was involved in criminal activity. The district court held a hearing on the matter and subsequently denied the suppression motion. Williams raised multiple issues on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, but finding no reversible errors, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of the motion. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Yusuf Awadir Abdi sued the directors of several federal agencies challenging his placement on a federal government’s terrorist watchlist. He alleged his being on the list subjected him to enhanced screening at the airport and requires the government to label him as a “known or suspected terrorist” and to disseminate that information to government and private entities. As a result of these alleged consequences, Abdi alleged placement on the Selectee List violated his Fifth Amendment rights to substantive and procedural due process and consequently the Administrative Procedure Act, for which he sought declarative and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed Abdi’s complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Finding no reversible error in that decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal. View "Abdi v. Wray" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Buck Leon Hammers served as the Superintendent of the Grant-Goodland Public School District in Grant, Oklahoma, until he was charged with conspiring with his secretary to commit bank fraud and embezzle federal program funds. Prior to trial, the Government moved to exclude a suicide note written by defendant’s secretary and co-conspirator, Pamela Keeling. In that note, Keeling took full responsibility for the fraud and exculpated Defendant of any wrongdoing. The district court granted the Government’s motion and prohibited Defendant from introducing the note at trial. The jury subsequently convicted Defendant of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and conspiracy to embezzle federal program funds. The jury acquitted Defendant on the seven substantive counts of embezzlement and bank fraud. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the district court erred in excluding the suicide note; (2) the Government did not present sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction; (3) the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) the district court committed procedural error at sentencing. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the suicide note; the record contained evidence sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction, there was no prosecutorial misconduct, and no procedural error in the court’s calculation of Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Hammers" on Justia Law

In removal proceedings, petitioner Sandra Lopez-Munoz appeared and requested cancellation of removal, but the immigration judge declined the request. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, moved for the Board to reopen her case, petitioned for review to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, moved a second time for the Board to reopen her case, and moved for reconsideration of the denial of her second motion to reopen. The removal proceedings began with the service of a notice to appear. But because the notice to appear failed to include a date and time for her impending immigration hearing, petitioner argued the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over the removal proceedings. If petitioner was correct, the Tenth Circuit concluded she might be entitled to relief based on the immigration judge’s lack of jurisdiction to order removal. In the Court’s view, however, the alleged defect would not preclude jurisdiction. It thus denied the petition for review. View "Lopez-Munoz v. Barr" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Curtis Anthony of child-sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit child-sex trafficking. The district court sentenced Anthony to the statutory mandatory-minimum 10 years’ imprisonment and ordered that he pay restitution to the two child victims— R.W. and M.M—in the amount of $327,013.50 and $308,233.50, respectively. On appeal, Anthony contended these amounts exceeded actual losses resulting from his two offenses of conviction. He raised two issues with the restitution order: (1) it impermissibly compensated harms that R.W. suffered from an earlier, unrelated sex-trafficking criminal enterprise run by a different wrongdoer; and (2) regarding his conspiracy count, it compensated R.W.’s and M.M.’s harms beyond a smaller conspiracy proved at trial (a subset of the broad, charged conspiracy). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Anthony on both issues, but we disagreed he established plain error on the second issue. Thus, the Court affirmed the district court’s restitution order as covering the broad, charged conspiracy, but vacated the order and remanded for a recalculation of losses to ensure that no restitution is awarded for harms that R.W. suffered during the earlier sex-trafficking offense. View "United States v. Anthony" on Justia Law