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

Kevin Underwood appealed the federal district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2008, a jury convicted Underwood of first degree murder and sentenced him to death in Oklahoma state court. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed Underwood’s conviction and sentence and later denied post-conviction relief. The federal district court denied Underwood’s requests for relief and for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on all eleven grounds raised in his 18 U.S.C. section 2254 application. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted COAs on six of the eleven grounds for relief, but finding that he was not entitled to habeas relief, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial. View "Underwood v. Royal" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Julia Frias was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition, and sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release, consecutive to a state sentence. On appeal, Frias argued she was denied her constitutional right to a speedy trial and that the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on the government’s burden of proof and responding to a jury inquiry. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Frias’ conviction. View "United States v. Frias" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Mirella Ivonne Avila-Ramos appealed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief for an extradition certification order. Avila-Ramos was wanted for aggravated homicide in Chihuahua, Mexico. According to the warrant for her arrest, Avila-Ramos plotted with Arturo Heriberto Herrera Rey, her paramour, to murder her husband. Avila-Ramos’s husband, who had survived an earlier attempt on his life, was on his way to a hospital appointment when he was attacked and killed by a hired gun. An investigation implicated Avila-Ramos and Rey in the hit, and Rey was convicted of aggravated homicide for his involvement in the crime. On appeal, Avila-Ramos challenged the magistrate judge’s and district court’s probable cause rulings. Finding that the magistrate judge adequately found probable cause that Avila-Ramos committed aggravated homicide, the crime identified in the extradition request, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. View "Avila-Ramos v. Deal" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Keith Howard Hull challenged one of the conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court when it sentenced him for committing bank robbery. The condition required him to notify third parties of risks he could pose to them. According to Hull, the condition was unconstitutionally vague, an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority, and an unlawful occupational restriction. Specifically, Hull argued the condition was vague because it did not provide his probation officer with sufficient guidance to determine the sort of risks that triggered application of the condition. The Tenth Circuit concluded this argument failed: sufficient guidance was given by the district court at sentencing. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Hull's sentence. View "United States v. Hull" on Justia Law

At sentencing, the district court enhanced Clifford Young’s guideline range for recklessly endangering others while fleeing from a law-enforcement officer. During the flight, he threatened to shoot if the police took action. They took action anyway, using “spike strips” to bring Young’s vehicle to an eventual stop. But Young refused to surrender, engaging in an armed standoff on the side of the highway. This conduct provided an adequate basis for the enhancement; the Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Jacob Ibanez was convicted of unlawfully possessing a gun. On appeal, he challenged his 50-month sentence on the ground that it was substantively unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit determined Ibanez failed to address any whether the ultimate sentence was unreasonable based on the statutory sentencing factors. Instead, he attacked the reasonableness of a guideline provision invoked by the district court. "Even if we were to agree with Mr. Ibanez’s criticism of the guideline provision, this criticism would not implicate the reasonableness of the sentence itself." As a result, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Ibanez" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, an officer found a large quantity of drugs in a vehicle driven by James Vance. A grand jury indicted Vance for possession of at least 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Vance filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine as the fruit of an illegal traffic stop; the district court denied Vance’s motion. Vance entered into a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. On appeal, Vance argued: (1) his conduct did not amount to a violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. 66-7-317(A) because his lane change did not pose a safety risk to, or have an actual affect on, nearby traffic; and (2) even assuming a lane change that does not pose a hazard to another vehicle can amount to a violation of section 66-7-317(A), officers lacked reasonable suspicion to believe he failed to confirm the safety of his lane change before making it. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Vance's conviction. View "United States v. Vance" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a special condition of supervised release, which banned Dominic Pacheco-Donelson from associating with any gang members. He challenged the ban only with respect to its inclusion of two of his foster brothers. Pacheco-Donelson argued inclusion of the two foster brothers rendered the ban procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding Pacheco-Donelson failed to object at district court based on procedural reasonableness, and he had not shown plain error. In addition, the Court found special condition was substantively reasonable, for it was reasonably related to the statutory sentencing factors and did not deprive Pacheco-Donelson of greater liberty than was reasonably necessary. View "United States v. Pacheco-Donelson" on Justia Law

Defendant Bruce Latorre appealed his marijuana trafficking convictions. Latorre flew a private aircraft from California to New York and was flying back to California when police detained him in Wyoming. Several state and federal law enforcement agencies cooperated to investigate and then stop Latorre’s aircraft at an airport in Wyoming, where they received Latorre’s consent to search his aircraft and found $519,935 in cash. A grand jury indicted Latorre on two counts: (1) interstate travel in aid of racketeering; and (2) conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Latorre moved to suppress the evidence from the search of his aircraft, and the district court denied the motion. Latorre then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He then appealed that denial to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Latorre" on Justia Law

Alejandro Lujan Jimenez petitioned for review a final order of removal and an order by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) declining to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings. Lujan is a native and citizen of Mexico. He first entered the United States as a child sometime in the 1990s. His most recent entry into the United States occurred in May 2004. In January 2007, Lujan pled guilty in Colorado state court to Criminal Trespass of a Motor Vehicle with the Intent to Commit a Crime Therein, and sentenced to 35 days in jail. The Department of Homeland Security filed a notice charging Lujan as removable. He received three continuances of removal proceedings until April 2009 when he conceded removability. Lujan then applied for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. He obtained four additional continuances of his removal proceedings. Lujan appeared in immigration court on June 5, 2013, and the IJ granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Lujan stated that he was attempting to obtain new counsel, but proceeded pro se at the hearing. The IJ denied relief, concluding that Lujan was ineligible for adjustment of status based on his immigration history and that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude—his criminal trespass offense in Colorado. Lujan appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ’s denial of a continuance violated his right to due process and that his Colorado conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling. Lujan then filed an untimely petition for review, which was dismissed. The Tenth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction over petition number 17-9527: review of the BIA’s decision declining to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. The Court has previously held that “we do not have jurisdiction to consider [a] petitioner’s claim that the BIA should have sua sponte reopened the proceedings . . . because there are no standards by which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” View "Lujan-Jimenez v. Sessions" on Justia Law