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

Plaintiff John Frank sued Wyoming state and local officials in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending Wyoming's electioneering statute violated the First Amendment, facially and as applied. Frank, a Wyoming citizen, and alleging the statute unconstitutionally prevented him from handing out campaign literature and displaying bumper stickers on his car within the 300-foot buffer zone. Frank also claimed the statute was overbroad because it violated the First Amendment rights of third parties who could not display campaign signs on private property falling within the statutory buffer zones. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted each in part, striking down some parts of the electioneering statute and upholding the rest. Specifically, the district court held the ban on electioneering within 300 feet of polling places on election day was unconstitutional, as was the ban on bumper stickers within the election day and absentee period buffer zones. But the district court upheld the statute’s prohibition on electioneering within 100 feet of absentee polling places. It also concluded there was an insufficient factual basis to consider Plaintiff’s overbreadth claim. After its review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court upheld the electioneering statute against Frank’s First Amendment challenge to the size of, and conduct proscribed within, the 300-foot election-day buffer zone. The Court reversed and remanded on Frank’s constitutional challenge to the absentee buffer zone, including the electioneering conduct proscribed within that zone. Finally, the Court remanded for the district court to adjudicate in the first instance Frank’s facial overbreadth challenge. View "Frank, et al. v. Wyoming Secretary of State, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Van Sant & Co. (Van Sant) owned and operated a mobile home park in Calhan, Colorado, for a number of years. In 2018, Van Sant began to publicly explore the possibility of converting its mobile home park to an RV park. In October 2018, Calhan adopted an ordinance that imposed regulations on the development of new RV parks, but also included a grandfather clause that effectively exempted the two existing RV parks in Calhan, one of which was connected to the grandparents of two members of Calhan’s Board of Trustees (Board) who voted in favor of the new RV park regulations. Van Sant subsequently filed suit against Calhan, several members of its Board, the owners of one of the existing RV parks, and other related individuals. asserting antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, as well as substantive due process and equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. Van Sant appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan, et al." on Justia Law

Wyoming Gun Owners, a non-profit gun rights advocacy group, aired a provocative radio ad in the run-up to Wyoming’s 2020 primary election. The ad extolled the pro-gun credentials of one candidate while branding the other as out of touch with Wyoming values. Under Wyoming law, an advertisement that refers to a candidate and advocates for his victory or defeat—or can only be reasonably understood in that way—generally constitutes an electioneering communication. The Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office flagged Wyoming Gun Owners’ advertisement as an electioneering communication. The organization subsequently sued the Secretary of State (and related parties) in federal district court, arguing that various provisions of the Wyoming statute were void for vagueness and that the disclosure scheme was not constitutionally justified. The district court agreed and determined that the disclosure regime failed exacting scrutiny as applied to WyGO and found a provision within the scheme void for vagueness as applied to WyGO. The Secretary appealed the latter two rulings and WyGO cross-appealed the rest. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on most claims: the disclosure regime failed exacting scrutiny as applied to WyGO for lack of narrow tailoring; and the regime’s requirement that expenditures for speech “related to” candidate campaigns must be disclosed was void for vagueness as applied to WyGO. The district court did, however, erroneously deny WyGO’s request for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Court reversed and remanded for an accounting of fees. View "Wyoming Gun Owners v. Gray, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Alfredo Nunez-Carranza, a Mexican citizen, challenged his fifty-one-month sentence for unlawfully reentering the United States after previously being removed. The fifty-one-month sentence fell at the bottom of Nunez-Carranza’s properly calculated advisory guideline range. On appeal, he contended the district court plainly erred in not explaining why it imposed that sentence instead of a below-guideline sentence that he requested. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "United States v. Nunez-Carranza" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Bentley Streett was arrested for, and eventually pleaded guilty to, various counts of child pornography and sexual activity with minors. His actions were discovered by the mother of one of the minors from whom Streett attempted to solicit pornography, prompting the mother to contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. An investigation ensued, resulting in the production of Streett’s cell phone records, followed by his arrest and a search of his home, computers, and phones. Streett appealed, arguing: (1) the search warrant permitting the search of his home lacked probable cause, and that the search could not be justified by an exception to the requirement that officers obtain a legitimate warrant; and (2) the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counts 3 through 7 of his indictment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Streett's motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Streett" on Justia Law

Appellant Ricardo Martinez was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of distribution of methamphetamine. He appealed the sentence he received, contending the district court miscalculated his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Martinez claimed the district court erred, first, by adding a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with a drug trafficking offense, and second, by refusing to apply a two-level “safety-valve” reduction under U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(18) and 5C1.2. The Tenth Circuit agreed Martinez was entitled to the safety-valve reduction but otherwise found no error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In 2019, defendant-appellant Larry Coates was caught possessing child pornography. At the time, he was serving supervised release for Kansas-state child exploitation violations. Coates pleaded guilty to a single count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). In anticipation of sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigative report (“PSR”) which recommended a pattern of activity enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5). Coates objected to the enhancement, reasoning it could only apply if the Guidelines' commentary’s definition of pattern was used. In doing so, Coates advocated the district court rely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), which determined courts could only defer to commentary accompanying executive agency regulations when the associated regulation was “genuinely ambiguous.” Absent express guidance from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court declined to apply Kisor and it did not otherwise believe the commentary inconsistent with the guideline. The Tenth Circuit confirmed this approach in United States v. Maloid, 71 F.4th 795 (10th Cir. 2023). Concurring with the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Coates" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Michael David Jackson was convicted and sentenced for several offenses stemming from the sexual abuse of his young niece, including two counts of possession of child pornography. On appeal Jackson argued, and the government conceded, that the possession convictions were multiplicitous and violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. To this the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and therefore remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate one of these convictions. Jackson also challenged his sentence, contending: it was procedurally unreasonable because the application of several sentencing enhancements constituted impermissible double counting; and it was substantively unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit noted the district court will have discretion to consider the entire sentencing package on remand. The Court rejected these challenges and concluded that the sentence imposed was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Roughly 50 years ago, Congress banned the possession of firearms by convicted felons. After Congress enacted this ban, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guaranteed a personal right to possess firearms. Based on the Court’s language, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the ban on convicted felons’ possession of firearms. The Supreme Court recently created a new test for the scope of the right to possess firearms. Based on the Supreme Court’s creation of a new test, plaintiff-appellant Melynda Vincent challenged the constitutionality of the ban when applied to individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies. To resolve this challenge, the Tenth Circuit had to consider whether the Supreme Court’s new test overruled Tenth Circuit precedent. The appellate court concluded that its precedent was not overruled. View "Vincent v. Garland, et al." on Justia Law

A district court conducted two hours of voir dire in a courtroom closed to the public and broadcasted live over an audio feed. After Defendant Quentin Veneno, Jr. objected, the district court concluded that the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic justified its closure of the courtroom, but also provided a video feed for the rest of trial. Although Defendant objected to the initial audio-only feed after the initial two hours of voir dire, he never requested that the district court restart jury selection or moved for a mistrial. Defendant appealed both his conviction and challenged Congress’s constitutional authority to criminalize the conduct of Indians on tribal land, whether a previous conviction can be a predicate offense for 18 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1) convictions, and whether admission of other-act evidence met the rigors of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Veneno" on Justia Law