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

The case involves a defendant who traveled from Miami to Oklahoma City to distribute fentanyl. Acting under the direction of another, he delivered packages of pills, later determined to contain a fentanyl analogue, to a confidential source and another individual in a vehicle. He was observed entering a hotel with an associate who rented a room in his own name, though a note at the front desk bore both their names and a room number. Shortly after, the defendant was seen returning to the hotel lobby with a duffel bag, attempted to flee when approached by law enforcement, and discarded the bag, which was later found to contain fentanyl pills. Upon searching the hotel room, officers found no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or substantial cash. The defendant admitted traveling to Oklahoma City to distribute drugs and stated he needed the associate’s help to rent the room.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, adopting the presentence investigation report, applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for maintaining a premises for drug distribution and assigned three criminal-history points for a prior conviction stemming from a 1996 offense. The defendant challenged both the application of the enhancement and the criminal-history calculation. The district court overruled the objection to the enhancement but reduced the criminal-history score by one point for unrelated reasons, sentencing the defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the premises-maintenance enhancement because the evidence demonstrated only brief possession of the hotel room with little or no control, and no evidence of drug activity in the room. However, the appellate court found no plain error in assigning three criminal-history points for the prior conviction. The court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Conill-Perez" on Justia Law

A father, motivated by religious beliefs and alleged divine messages received by a companion, took his three-year-old, disabled son from the child’s mother, who was the primary caregiver. Along with several family members and associates, he transported the boy from Georgia to New Mexico, leaving the mother behind and without her consent. The group settled on a remote property, where the father and others performed physically intrusive religious rituals on the child, resulting in the child’s death. The group then adopted apocalyptic beliefs, trained with firearms, and fortified their compound in anticipation of conflict with government agencies. Law enforcement eventually raided the compound, arrested several adults, and discovered the child’s body.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over a joint trial for four defendants. The mother’s siblings and brother-in-law were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201. The father, exempt from kidnapping charges as a parent, was convicted (along with another) of conspiracy to provide material support for and to kill federal officers, after representing himself at trial. The trial court sentenced all four to life imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit examined several issues, most centrally the definition of “unlawfully” in the context of federal kidnapping. The Tenth Circuit held that the jury instructions incorrectly defined “unlawfully” and that the government had not presented sufficient evidence that the co-defendants’ actions were contrary to law, given that the father had lawful parental rights at the time of the interstate transport. The court reversed the kidnapping convictions for those defendants. The Tenth Circuit also held that the pro se defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights were violated when they were excluded from a jury-note conference of tactical importance, vacating their convictions on material support and conspiracy-to-kill counts and remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wahhaj" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including the founder of a religious group called Singularism, used psilocybin as part of their religious ceremonies in Utah, where the drug is classified as a controlled substance. Authorities seized a large quantity of psilocybin from them and notified Singularism’s landlord that the drug use constituted a nuisance. Shortly after, the plaintiffs initiated a state lawsuit, which was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The federal court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the return of seized items and, after state authorities filed criminal charges, enjoined state prosecution against the religious leader to prevent a potential First Amendment violation.On appeal, the state authorities argued that the federal district court should have abstained from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine, and that prosecution did not violate the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s refusal to abstain de novo and found the requirements for abstention were satisfied. The court concluded that the state authorities had not waived the abstention argument through their litigation conduct. The plaintiffs failed to show that the prosecution was brought in bad faith, was harassing, or created a threat of irreparable injury, as required for exceptions to abstention.On the merits, the Tenth Circuit held the district court erred in finding a likely First Amendment violation. The court found Utah law’s regulatory scheme for secular, supervised medical use of psilocybin was not comparable to the unsupervised religious use, and thus did not treat secular activity more favorably than religious activity. The court vacated the injunction and the denial of the motion to dismiss as to preferential treatment for secular use, remanding the issue of individualized exemptions for further district court proceedings, and dismissed the appeal regarding the Fourth Amendment claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jensen v. Utah County" on Justia Law

Police officers in Colorado observed an SUV parked in a lot adjacent to a closed check-cashing store and inactive bus stop at approximately 1:50 a.m., a location known for drug activity. The vehicle was reverse-parked, and three or four individuals were standing nearby. As officers approached, some individuals dispersed and the defendant, Mr. Jackson, was seen making furtive movements inside the vehicle. Officers requested Mr. Jackson exit the SUV, conducted a pat-down, and found a firearm in his pants. He was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).Mr. Jackson moved in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to suppress evidence of the gun, arguing that the stop and pat-down were made without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, during which both officers testified. The district court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the location, time, reverse-parking, presence and dispersal of individuals around the SUV, and Mr. Jackson’s furtive movements prior to the stop. The court denied the motion to suppress.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. It concluded that the district court’s findings regarding the presence of individuals and observations of Mr. Jackson’s furtive movements were not clearly erroneous, even in light of conflicting written statements and body-camera footage. The Tenth Circuit held that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and upheld Mr. Jackson’s conviction. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A man became the primary caregiver for his two-month-old daughter after his partner returned to work. Within a few days, the child was found to have severe and unexplained injuries, including multiple broken bones, bruises, and scratches. The child’s mother noticed initial injuries but delayed seeking medical attention until a scheduled check-up, at which point a pediatrician directed them to the hospital and notified authorities. Medical examination suggested the injuries were caused by forceful, non-accidental actions over a period of days. The accused gave varying explanations for the injuries, none of which were found consistent with the medical evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma conducted a two-day jury trial. The prosecution presented expert and lay witnesses, including a specialist in child abuse who diagnosed the child as having suffered abuse and neglect. The defense challenged the admissibility and scope of the expert’s testimony, as well as certain statements by lay witnesses, arguing they improperly commented on the defendant’s credibility and offered expert opinions. The jury found the defendant guilty on both charges of child abuse and child neglect. The district court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial and imposed a ten-year sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the expert’s medical diagnoses, as these did not address the defendant’s mental state—a necessary element for conviction—leaving that determination to the jury. The court also found that any improper lay witness testimony was harmless given its similarity to uncontested expert testimony. Arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error were rejected. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop on Highway I-80 in Wyoming, George Ostertag was pulled over by law enforcement for failing to signal a turn. A K-9 officer deployed a narcotics-detection dog named Becky to sniff the exterior of Ostertag’s vehicle while a record check was being performed. Becky subsequently made physical contact with the vehicle, alerting to the presence of contraband, which prompted officers to search the vehicle. They discovered a 9mm pistol with an obliterated serial number between the driver’s seat and center console. Ostertag, a convicted felon, was indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held a five-day suppression hearing. It found Becky to be sufficiently reliable and determined she exhibited a positive alert behavior before making physical contact with the vehicle. The district court concluded that while Becky’s contact with the vehicle constituted a search, the alert prior to contact provided probable cause to justify the search. The court also rejected Ostertag’s argument that Becky’s open-air sniff amounted to a search. Ostertag’s motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment—on both facial and as-applied Second Amendment grounds—were denied. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal, and the charge for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number was dismissed. Ostertag was convicted on the remaining count and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that Becky’s open-air sniff did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and even if Becky’s physical contact with the vehicle was a search, probable cause existed. The court further held that binding precedent foreclosed both facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Ostertag" on Justia Law

Nancy Martin embezzled millions of dollars from her employers over several years. After discovery of her actions, her employers obtained an $11 million default judgment against her in Kansas state court when she failed to appear, apparently following the advice of her attorney. Subsequently, Martin was federally indicted for bank fraud and for assisting in the filing of false tax documents, related to her failure to report the embezzled funds. On the advice of counsel, she pled guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of tax fraud. The federal district court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms and ordered $3.9 million in restitution.Martin initially appealed her conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but her appeal was dismissed due to the appeal waiver in her plea agreement. She then filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. She claimed her attorney failed to inform her of potential defenses related to the bank fraud charge and the necessity of willfulness for the tax charge. The district court denied her motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding her legal theories insufficient and concluding she had not demonstrated prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and held that Martin was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether her counsel’s failure to advise her of a potential defense to bank fraud constituted deficient performance, and whether she suffered prejudice as a result. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred in its legal analysis regarding willfulness for the tax charge and remanded for further proceedings to properly assess prejudice. The district court’s denial was therefore reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Mark Bayne was charged in July 2024 with multiple federal offenses, including making threats in interstate commerce and stalking, after allegedly sending numerous hostile messages through a Department of Veterans Affairs system. Bayne has a history of similar offenses and mental health issues: in 2010, after being indicted for threats, he was found incompetent to stand trial, later restored to competence, and ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity following further psychiatric evaluations. He was conditionally released with psychiatric treatment requirements but violated those terms, resulting in re-arrest and subsequent releases. After his most recent discharge in February 2024, the current offenses allegedly occurred.Following his indictment, Bayne was detained pretrial because he refused release conditions. He missed several status conferences, citing chronic pain and transportation discomfort. Although his attorneys stated he was competent, the government requested a psychiatric evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241, and the United States District Court for the District of Utah found reasonable cause to question Bayne’s competence, ordering the evaluation. Bayne challenged this order, asserting it was an abuse of discretion and that the reasonable cause determination was unsupported.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the interlocutory appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it did not fall within the collateral-order doctrine’s narrow exception to the final judgment rule. Specifically, the interests at stake for a detained defendant subject to a competency evaluation were outweighed by the public interest in prompt criminal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the court did not address the merits of Bayne’s challenge to the evaluation order. View "United States v. Bayne" on Justia Law

An individual pleaded guilty to twelve felony counts, including threatening members of Congress and their families and transmitting those threats via interstate communication. The sentencing guidelines recommended a prison term of 33 to 41 months based on the offense level and criminal history. Although the guidelines did not permit probation, the court imposed a five-year probation term, as urged by all parties, with special conditions, including monitored communications and a prohibition on making further threats. Within days, the defendant violated probation by sending another threatening message to a former federal official, prompting the probation office to seek revocation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held a revocation hearing, revoked probation, and resentenced the defendant. The court referenced both Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, ultimately imposing a 36-month prison sentence based on the Chapter 5 range. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by not starting with Chapter 7’s recommended range for probation violations. Initially, the appellate panel affirmed the sentence, interpreting prior circuit precedent, United States v. Moore (Moore I), as not requiring the district court to identify an alternative sentence at the original sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed whether Moore I’s two-step sentencing process—first considering the underlying offense under Chapter 5 and then the probation violation under Chapter 7—was correct. The court held that after revoking probation, the sentencing court must take Chapter 7’s recommended range as its starting point, and only consider Chapter 5’s range when deciding whether to vary from Chapter 7’s recommendation. Because the district court did not follow this process, the Tenth Circuit reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Seals" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was observed in a high-crime area of Albuquerque, New Mexico, acting suspiciously by loitering near a house, retrieving a duffel bag he had left overnight, and peering into the window of a car for sale. After the homeowner reported his behavior to the police, deputies responding to the call found the defendant matching the caller’s description. During their interaction, the defendant acted nervously, repeatedly reached into his duffel bag, and did not comply with officers’ commands. The deputies conducted a pat-down, discovering a pistol, a magazine, and cash on his person. After running his information, they learned of outstanding felony warrants, arrested him, and searched the duffel bag, uncovering methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.In the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence from his person and the duffel bag, arguing the stop, frisk, and search were unlawful. Initially, the district court indicated the stop and frisk were lawful but suppressed the contents of the duffel bag, finding no valid inventory search or basis for inevitable discovery. After the government submitted additional evidence regarding inventory procedures, the district court reconsidered and denied the motion to suppress, holding that the items would have been inevitably discovered during a lawful inventory search prior to booking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court concluded that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion given the defendant's suspicious behavior in a high-crime area. The court further held that, even if the frisk or bag search had been unlawful, the items would have been inevitably discovered either during a search incident to arrest or a proper inventory search. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, upholding the convictions. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law