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

A thirteen-year-old girl, D.C., reported to her stepmother that her stepfather, Edgar Rene Garcia-Limon, had sexually abused her over several years, beginning when she was about four and continuing until she was eleven. During the investigation, D.C. described multiple incidents of abuse, and Garcia-Limon admitted to law enforcement and his wife that he had sexually touched D.C. on several occasions. Law enforcement also found firearms in the home, leading to additional charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Garcia-Limon on four counts: felon in possession of a firearm, aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, abusive sexual contact in Indian Country, and illegal reentry. Garcia-Limon challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for the sexual abuse counts, arguing that the eight-year date range was too broad and that the counts improperly charged a scheme rather than specific acts. The district court denied his motions, finding that the indictment properly charged a scheme of abuse and that the counts were not constitutionally defective or duplicitous. At trial, the jury found Garcia-Limon guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent terms, including life sentences for the sexual abuse counts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the indictment was constitutionally sufficient, whether the statutes allowed charging a scheme of abuse, whether the indictment was duplicitous, and whether there was a constructive amendment at trial. The court held that the indictment met constitutional requirements, that the statutes permitted charging a scheme of repeated, similar acts in a single count, and that there was no unconstitutional duplicity or constructive amendment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Garcia-Limon’s convictions on the challenged counts. View "United States v. Garcia-Limon" on Justia Law

Michael Kay was convicted after pleading guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court found that Kay had hidden the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle before his arrest and imposed a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, despite the defense's objection. Kay was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Kay challenged the imposition of the § 3C1.1 enhancement, arguing that his pre-investigative conduct was not "likely to thwart" the investigation of the offense, as required by application note 1 in the commentary to § 3C1.1.The United States District Court for the District of Utah initially reviewed the case. The court found that Kay's act of hiding the firearm in the trunk was sufficient to warrant the obstruction of justice enhancement. The court noted that Kay's conduct was purposefully calculated to obstruct justice and that the firearm was hidden in a manner that was likely to thwart the investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Kay's conduct was likely to thwart the investigation. The Tenth Circuit noted that the firearm was hidden behind multiple barriers in the trunk, and the officers only discovered it after Kay's son directed them to the trunk. The court concluded that the district court's finding was plausible and permissible in light of the entire record, and thus, the obstruction enhancement under § 3C1.1 was appropriately applied. View "United States v. Kay" on Justia Law

The case involves the appeal of Lev Aslan Dermen, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering offenses, and money laundering. The charges stem from a scheme orchestrated by Dermen and his co-conspirators to file false claims for federal biofuel incentives, resulting in over $500 million in fraudulent payouts. The scheme involved laundering the fraud proceeds through various channels, including domestic and foreign entities and accounts.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Utah conducted a seven-week trial, after which the jury convicted Dermen on all counts. Dermen was sentenced to forty years in prison and ordered to forfeit assets and pay a money judgment. Dermen raised several issues on appeal, including juror misconduct, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial, alleged Brady violations, improper expert testimony, insufficient evidence for some convictions, and errors in sentencing and forfeiture orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Dermen's appeal. The court rejected all of Dermen's arguments, affirming the lower court's decisions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of juror misconduct and the impact of COVID-19. It also held that the alleged Brady violations were not material, the expert testimony was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court upheld the sentencing and forfeiture orders, finding no error in the district court's application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and its admission of hearsay evidence in the forfeiture proceedings. View "United States v. Dermen" on Justia Law

On August 3, 2020, the Kansas City Kansas Police Department responded to a drive-by shooting at the Butler family's home, associated with the Tasha Gang. The suspected shooter was Isaiah Shields of the rival BBUx2 Gang. Later that night, officers were fired upon by multiple shooters, injuring an ATF agent and a civilian. Officers suspected five individuals from the Tasha Gang, including Nadarius Barnes, were responsible for the retaliatory shooting.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas charged the five individuals with forcible assault of a federal officer and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The defendants moved to dismiss the firearm charge, arguing that the assault charge was not a crime of violence. The district court denied the motion, holding that the assault charge was a crime of violence. Barnes entered an unconditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 156 months' imprisonment, including an upward departure and variance from the guideline range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Barnes argued that his conviction should be vacated because the assault charge was not a crime of violence and challenged the reasonableness of his sentence. The Tenth Circuit held that Barnes's unconditional guilty plea waived his right to challenge the conviction on the grounds that the assault charge was not a crime of violence. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance, as it conducted a detailed assessment of the relevant sentencing factors. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Barnes's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

G’Ante Butler was convicted of forcible assault of a federal officer and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence following a nine-day jury trial. The incident involved a retaliatory shooting at the home of a rival gang member, during which multiple shooters, including Butler, fired upon law enforcement officers and a civilian. Butler was found with a firearm and cell phone evidence linked him to the crime scene. He denied involvement, but co-defendant Chase Lewis testified against him, corroborated by substantial circumstantial evidence.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas admitted various pieces of evidence, including testimony from a neighbor and law enforcement officers. The jury found Butler guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 190 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Butler appealed, challenging the district court’s failure to give a limiting instruction on impeachment evidence, the admission of a neighbor’s testimony, and the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments. He also argued cumulative error and contended that his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated because § 111(b) is not a crime of violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court’s failure to give a limiting instruction was harmless error due to the substantial evidence supporting the conviction. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the neighbor’s testimony, as it was relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The prosecutor’s closing statements were not plainly erroneous, and the jury was properly instructed on the government’s burden of proof. The court also rejected the cumulative error argument, as only one error was identified. Finally, the court affirmed that § 111(b) is a crime of violence, consistent with its precedent in United States v. Kendall. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Cody Byron Teerlink was convicted of making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm. He had previously pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony for driving under the influence in Utah and completed his probation successfully. Despite being eligible for a reduction of his felony to a misdemeanor under Utah law, he did not apply for it. In 2021, Teerlink attempted to purchase firearms on three occasions, falsely stating on ATF Form 4473 that he had not been convicted of a felony. He was able to purchase a rifle once due to a system glitch but was denied on the other two attempts.The United States District Court for the District of Utah directed the parties to agree on jury instructions. The parties jointly submitted an instruction defining "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which included language criticized by the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court. The jury convicted Teerlink on one count of making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm and acquitted him on the other counts. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Teerlink argued that the jury instruction lowered the government's burden of proof, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. However, the court held that Teerlink invited any alleged error by jointly submitting the instruction and failing to object at trial. The court emphasized that parties cannot propose jury instructions and later challenge them on appeal. The court also rejected Teerlink's argument that a footnote in the jury instructions preserved his right to plain-error review, stating that such a footnote cannot immunize a party from the invited-error doctrine. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Teerlink" on Justia Law

David Berryhill, Jr. was pulled over by Oklahoma Highway Patrol for a traffic violation. During the stop, a K-9 unit alerted to his vehicle, leading to a search that uncovered a significant amount of methamphetamine and cash. Berryhill admitted to transporting the drugs for payment. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Berryhill. He requested a mitigating-role adjustment, arguing he was merely a courier. The court denied this request, finding his role more significant based on the quantity of drugs and his involvement in the trafficking operation. Berryhill was sentenced to 168 months in prison.Berryhill appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing the district court applied the wrong legal standard by not comparing his role to other participants in the criminal activity. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged the district court's error in not conducting a relative-culpability analysis but concluded the error was not clear or obvious due to ambiguous language in prior case law. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Berryhill’s sentence, holding that while the district court erred, the error did not meet the plain-error standard’s requirement of being clear or obvious. View "United States v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

A father was accused of sexually abusing and assaulting his 11-year-old daughter over the course of a single day. The daughter testified to three separate incidents: in the family’s toy room, the father touched her chest through her clothes and showed her a pornographic video; in the school room, he told her they would have vaginal sex that night, described the pain she would experience, touched her vagina through her clothes, and made her touch his exposed penis; later, while driving her to a store, he touched her again, showed more pornographic videos, and, after stopping on a dirt road, moved her onto his lap, sucked on her chest, touched her vagina, kissed her, and asked if she was sure about having sex.A jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma found the father guilty of abusive sexual contact with a minor under 12 and assault with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse. After the verdict, the district court entered a judgment of acquittal on the assault charge, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient because the father had said the sex would occur later that night, not immediately. The government moved for reconsideration, and the district court reinstated the conviction, concluding that a reasonable jury could have found both assault and the required intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed three issues: whether the district court plainly erred by not instructing the jury to agree on a specific incident of sexual contact, whether the district court could reinstate the assault conviction after acquittal, and whether sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction. The court held that the omission of a specific unanimity instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, that the district court could correct its mistaken acquittal without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Roark" on Justia Law

Defendants Jerrold Chavarria and Jerry Romero were accused of kidnapping and murdering a woman in Eddy County, New Mexico. They were charged with the federal crime of kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The indictment claimed that the defendants used a motor vehicle, a Jeep, as an instrumentality of interstate commerce in committing the crime. However, the indictment did not provide details on how the kidnapping affected interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the superseding indictment, ruling that it lacked an adequate nexus to interstate commerce. The court found that the use of a motor vehicle alone, without more, was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that not all motor vehicles are per se instrumentalities of interstate commerce. It emphasized that for an object to be considered an instrumentality of interstate commerce, it must serve the end of commerce. The court found that the government’s indictment was insufficient because it did not allege how the use of the motor vehicle in this case affected interstate commerce. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the superseding indictment, concluding that the federal kidnapping statute did not apply in this instance due to the lack of a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. View "United States v. Chavarria" on Justia Law

On December 21, 2022, Oklahoma City Police officers received a tip that Karen Gonzalez, who had an outstanding arrest warrant, was at a Days Inn. Officers surveilled the area and followed a car they believed she entered to a gas station. They confirmed her identity and arrested her. Jonas Tyler, who was near the car, was detained, handcuffed, and placed in a police car. Despite his compliance and lack of suspicion, officers detained him further while waiting for a K-9 unit, which eventually led to the discovery of a firearm and drugs in his car.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Mr. Tyler's motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, ruling that his continued detention was reasonable. Mr. Tyler then entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Mr. Tyler's continued detention after the arrest of Ms. Gonzalez was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that the government did not have a sufficient justification for detaining Mr. Tyler beyond the initial arrest of Ms. Gonzalez, as there was no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or dangerousness on his part. Consequently, the court vacated Mr. Tyler's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion. View "United States v. Tyler" on Justia Law