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

Law enforcement identified the defendant as a supplier of methamphetamine and fentanyl in a drug-trafficking conspiracy in Kansas City. After seizing three pounds of methamphetamine from a car en route to the defendant, DEA agents enlisted the driver to continue the delivery to the defendant. The defendant was arrested upon arrival to collect the drugs. During custody, the defendant made incriminating statements and consented to a search of his cell phone. He later moved to suppress these statements and the phone's contents.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the suppression motions. The court ruled that the defendant's pre-Miranda statement about his cell phone number was admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. It also found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights and that his post-Miranda statements were not coerced. The court concluded that the defendant's consent to the cell phone search was voluntary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied to the pre-Miranda statement. It found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights, and his statements were not coerced. The court also held that the defendant's consent to the cell phone search was voluntary. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's findings and affirmed the denial of suppression. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

Wendy Johnson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter after causing the death of Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux in a drunk-driving accident. The government sought criminal restitution for Stephanie’s lost income, presenting testimony from an expert and Stephanie’s wife, Kristi Heneha-Roubidoux. Johnson argued for zero lost-income restitution, citing the government’s expert who stated Stephanie would have consumed all her income personally. The district court declined to deduct personal consumption from the restitution award.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Johnson to 36 months in prison and three years of supervised release, without imposing a fine due to her lack of financial resources. The court ordered restitution of $158,009, based on the government’s reduced request of $208,009 minus a $50,000 insurance settlement received by Kristi. The court found Kristi’s testimony about Stephanie’s income credible and relied on it, despite the defense expert’s criticism of the government’s expert for not applying a personal-consumption deduction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court erred in rejecting the personal-consumption deduction for a legally incorrect reason, as household contributions do not fall within “lost income” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). The appellate court vacated the restitution award and remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the personal-consumption deduction and the payment schedule. The appellate court also addressed the sealing of certain documents, granting the parties' request to redact specific private information and keep the district court’s statement of reasons under seal. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Pascual A. Ruiz Jr. was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of possession of ammunition by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, the government promised to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range, which was 51 months. At sentencing, the prosecutor recommended 51 months but also discussed Ruiz’s criminal history. The district court relied on Ruiz’s criminal history to depart upward and imposed a 70-month sentence. Ruiz appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by undermining its recommendation.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas accepted Ruiz’s guilty plea and calculated his offense level and criminal history, resulting in a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) suggested an upward departure might be warranted due to Ruiz’s extensive criminal history. At sentencing, the district court expressed concern about Ruiz’s criminal history and imposed a 70-month sentence, classifying it as an upward departure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Ruiz argued the government breached the plea agreement by emphasizing his criminal history at sentencing. The court assumed, without deciding, that a plain error occurred but found Ruiz failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged breach. The court noted the district court’s independent concern about Ruiz’s criminal history, expressed before the prosecutor’s remarks, and concluded the district court would have likely imposed the same sentence regardless. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the 70-month sentence. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

The case involves Justin Ness, who was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated Ness based on evidence from his public Facebook page, which included photos and videos of him with firearms. A search warrant for his private Facebook page revealed further evidence, leading to a search of his trailer, where a firearm and ammunition were found. Ness was indicted for possessing the firearm and ammunition on or about September 8, 2021.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a two-day trial in March 2022. The government presented evidence from Ness's Facebook account and testimony from ATF agents. Ness's defense included testimony from a friend, Geoff Irwin, who claimed ownership of the firearm, and Ness himself, who denied knowing about the firearm and ammunition in his trailer. The jury was instructed that the government needed to prove the crime occurred "reasonably near" the alleged date. During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the timeline, but the court responded that they had all the evidence needed to render a verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Ness argued that the district court erred by not clarifying the "on or about" instruction, which he claimed could have led to his conviction for uncharged conduct from several months earlier. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err in its response to the jury's question and that Ness failed to show plain error or that his substantial rights were affected. The court affirmed Ness's conviction. View "United States v. Ness" on Justia Law

Joseph Harjo was tried and convicted by a jury in Oklahoma federal court for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country under the Major Crimes Act. The district court sentenced him to life in prison. Harjo challenged his conviction, arguing that the Major Crimes Act is unconstitutional and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior child abuse under Federal Rule of Evidence 414.Previously, Harjo was charged by the state of Oklahoma with child sexual abuse and was convicted by a state jury, resulting in a life sentence. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which determined that Muskogee was within the Muscogee Creek Nation, Oklahoma's jurisdiction was invalidated, and Harjo's conviction was set aside. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on one count of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent that establishes Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs and the unique status of Indians as a separate people with their own political institutions. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of five child witnesses under Rule 414. The district court had determined that a reasonable jury could conclude the prior acts occurred by a preponderance of the evidence and that the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court carefully addressed the relevant factors and reached a permissible conclusion on the admissibility of the testimony. Therefore, the court affirmed Harjo's conviction and life sentence. View "United States v. Harjo" on Justia Law

Steven M. Hohn, the defendant, was convicted of multiple drug and firearm charges. While awaiting trial, he was detained at CoreCivic, where the Kansas U.S. Attorney’s Office (Kansas USAO) obtained and listened to his attorney-client phone calls. Hohn later discovered this and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his judgment or reduce his sentence, arguing that the government’s intrusion violated his Sixth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Hohn’s § 2255 petition. The court found that Hohn did not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his attorney-client call because he knew the call would be recorded and did not follow the proper steps to privatize it. The court also concluded that Hohn waived the attorney-client privilege by making the call despite knowing it would be recorded. Consequently, the court did not reach a direct Sixth Amendment analysis, as it determined that the privilege was a necessary underpinning of Hohn’s Sixth Amendment right.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court overruled its precedent in Shillinger v. Haworth, which had established a structural-error rule presuming prejudice when the government intentionally intrudes into the attorney-client relationship without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The Tenth Circuit held that a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to confidential communication with an attorney requires the defendant to show prejudice. Since Hohn conceded that he suffered no prejudice from the prosecution’s obtaining and listening to his six-minute call with his attorney, his claim failed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying Hohn’s § 2255 petition. View "United States v. Hohn" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped Taylor Pinder for speeding. Pinder provided a driver's license that did not match his appearance. The officer arrested Pinder for providing false identification, a misdemeanor in Utah. During a search of the car incident to the arrest, the officer found methamphetamine and a handgun. Pinder was charged federally and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Pinder pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Pinder's motion to suppress, concluding the search was justified under Arizona v. Gant, which allows vehicle searches incident to arrest if it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. The court also suggested the search might be justified based on Pinder's supervised release conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Tenth Circuit held that Pinder's real driver's license was relevant to the crime of providing false identification, even after the officer verified his identity. The court did not address the district court's alternative reasoning regarding supervised release conditions or the government's good faith argument raised for the first time on appeal. View "United States v. Pinder" on Justia Law

Mica Martinez was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Martinez sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a claim about his trial counsel’s inadequate investigation and presentation of testimony from his grandfather, mother, and uncle. He also claimed that his sentencing was fundamentally unfair due to witness testimony about his use of a racial slur and argued for reversible cumulative error.The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed Martinez’s conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence of malice aforethought and holding that trial counsel did not perform deficiently. The OCCA also rejected Martinez’s claim that the introduction of a racial slur during sentencing denied him a fair proceeding, concluding that any error was cured by the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the comment. The OCCA denied Martinez’s applications for postconviction relief, including his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of trial counsel’s investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of habeas relief. The court held that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law or rely on an unreasonable factual finding in rejecting Martinez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court also found that Martinez failed to point to any clearly established federal law regarding the introduction of inflammatory evidence, and the OCCA did not base its decision on an unreasonable factual finding. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of relief on the cumulative error claim as well. View "Martinez v. Quick" on Justia Law

In the early hours of November 13, 2021, DeAnna Suazo was found dead outside her home on the Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, under her running vehicle, showing signs of being run over. Her boyfriend, Santiago Martinez, after a failed polygraph test, admitted to pushing Suazo to the ground and running her over. Martinez was indicted for second-degree murder in Indian Country. Several pretrial motions were adjudicated, leading to three separate appeals.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Martinez's motion to suppress his post-polygraph statements to the FBI, ruling that he should have been re-Mirandized before the post-polygraph interview. The court also ruled inadmissible certain text messages between Suazo and Martinez, which the Government argued were not hearsay but showed their effect on Martinez. Additionally, the court excluded witness testimony of a prior incident where Martinez allegedly assaulted Suazo, ruling it inadmissible under Rule 404(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's suppression of Martinez's post-polygraph statements, holding that the initial Miranda waiver was valid and did not require re-advisement before the post-polygraph interview. The court also reversed the exclusion of the text messages, agreeing with the Government that they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to show their effect on Martinez. Lastly, the court reversed and remanded the exclusion of the prior assault testimony for reconsideration, given the changed evidentiary landscape with the admissibility of Martinez's statements. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of two counts of witness tampering and one count of voluntary manslaughter. The presentence report recommended grouping all three counts under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, but the district court declined to do so. The defendant appealed, arguing that the Guidelines required all three convictions to be grouped.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico initially grouped the two witness tampering counts under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b) but did not group them with the manslaughter count under § 3D1.2(c). The district court used uncharged obstructive conduct to enhance the manslaughter count, resulting in a higher offense level and a sentencing range of 168-210 months. The defendant was sentenced to 210 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the relevant Guidelines were grievously ambiguous. The court concluded that the rule of lenity required the Guidelines to be construed in the defendant's favor. The court vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing under an offense level of 31, which corresponds to a lower sentencing range of 151-188 months. View "United States v. Tony" on Justia Law