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

Defendant-appellant Elizabeth Kupfer and her husband jointly filed federal income taxes for 2004-2006, but failed to report over $790,000 in gross income. The government charged defendant with three counts of tax evasion, one for each tax year. She admitted that she had failed to report a substantial amount of gross income, but denied that her under-reporting was willful. A jury disagreed and found defendant guilty on each of the three counts. Defendant appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury; (2) the trial court erred in denying her request for a mistrial after she alleged a juror commented on other charges against defendant during jury deliberations; and (3) the trial court erred in calculating defendant's sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the trial court did miscalculate defendant's sentence. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "United States v. Kupfer" on Justia Law

While executing a search warrant at defendant-appellant Omero Cordova’s home, law enforcement found marijuana, firearms, and drug paraphernalia. Cordova admitted those items belonged to him. Cordova sought to suppress the evidence against him when he was subsequently charged with various drug related offenses. Although the district court agreed the affidavit failed to provide probable cause, it denied Cordova’s motion to suppress under the good faith exception to the warrant requirement. The court also rejected Cordova’s separate motion to suppress his statements, concluding his confession was voluntary. A jury subsequently convicted Cordova of all six charges against him. Cordova appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress the evidence and his statements. After review, the Tenth Circuit reversed, concluding the affidavit contained so few facts implicating either Cordova or his current home that a reasonable officer could not have relied on the warrant in good faith. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cordova" on Justia Law

Luis Carlos Castro-Gomez appealed a district court’s finding that his prior Illinois conviction for attempted murder was a crime of violence triggering a 16-level enhancement under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). The district court overruled Castro-Gomez’s objection, finding that Illinois’ definition of murder corresponded with the uniform generic definition of the offense, triggering the enhancement. Castro-Gomez was sentenced to 35 months in prison. Castro-Gomez’s sole argument on appeal was that Illinois’ definition of murder required only the intent to do great bodily harm, while the generic definition of murder required more. Read together, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/8-4(a) (West 2015) and 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2015) made intent to kill (which encompasses killing an individual with merely intent to do great bodily harm) an element of Illinois’ definition of attempted murder. This tandem reading cured the only overbreadth of which Castro-Gomez complained. The Tenth Circuit rejected this challenge and affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Castro-Gomez" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Clinton Eldridge appealed the denial of his habeas petition. He pled guilty to various violent felonies and was incarcerated at a federal prison. On appeal, he argued that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incorrectly computed his sentence by not crediting all of his time served from his original sentencing hearing through his resentencing, a period of nearly nine years. He also argued that the district court failed to address his arguments concerning credit for time he served from his arrest to his original sentencing (235 days) and for time he served after his parole (for an earlier crime) was revoked (61 days). Because Eldridge was convicted and sentenced in the District of Columbia Superior Court, a court of general jurisdiction separate from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Tenth Circuit concluded it was not obvious whether petitioner was a federal or state prisoner. Under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1), if Eldridge was a state prisoner, he had to obtain a Certificate of Appealability (COA) before he could appeal. If he was a federal prisoner, he did not need a COA to appeal a final judgment in a section 2241 case. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Eldridge was a state prisoner for purposes of section 2253(c)(1) and that he had to obtain a COA to proceed on appeal. The Court further concluded that Eldridge did not meet the necessary showing to obtain a COA. Accordingly, the Court denied a COA and dismissed this appeal. View "Eldridge v. Berkebile" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Kizzy Kalu recruited foreign nationals to come to the United States for specialized nursing employment, required them to work as non-specialized laborers in nursing homes, retained a portion of their wages for personal profit, and threatened them with deportation and financial ruin if they did not comply with his demands. He misrepresented the terms of their employment to the government to obtain visas and bring the foreign nationals into the country. The government charged defendant in a 95-count superseding indictment. After a trial, a jury found defendant guilty of 89 of the counts alleged, including: (1) mail fraud; (2) encouraging and inducing an alien; (3) visa fraud; (4) forced labor; (5) trafficking in forced labor; and (6) money laundering. The district court sentenced defendant to 130 months of imprisonment on some counts and 120 months on others, with the sentences running concurrently. The court also ordered forfeiture in the amount of $475,592.94 and awarded $3,790,338.55 in restitution. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendant argued the district court erroneously instructed the jury on various offenses and sought reversal of his convictions. He also argued the district court abused its discretion in calculating restitution. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Kalu" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Gary Sparks was convicted of witness tampering and sentenced to thirty-six months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Sparks’ conviction arose out of a statement he made to his thirteen-year-old granddaughter, “H.L.,” in advance of her expected testimony in a criminal proceeding against her mother, Sparks’ daughter, Stacy Ashley. Ashley faced charges for, inter alia, distribution of a substance containing oxymorphone, with death resulting. Investigators met with H.L., who told them that she had witnessed Ashley trading pills with the deceased individual the night before he overdosed and died. After discussing H.L.’s likely testimony with Ashley on two occasions, Sparks took H.L. to visit Ashley in jail roughly three weeks before the expected trial date. After the visit, Sparks took H.L. to dinner. H.L. confided in Sparks that she had spoken with an investigator. According to H.L., Sparks told her “you should only lie about the important stuff.” On appeal, Sparks argued that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) the jury was not properly instructed on a possible affirmative defense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Sparks" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee Jeffrey Williams filed a motion seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to various drug and firearm charges based on newly discovered evidence. Specifically, defendant submitted affidavits in support of his claim that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered because the law enforcement officers investigating his case planted evidence, gave false testimony, and used threats and intimidation to suborn perjury from other witnesses. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court vacated defendant's convictions, concluding that the officers had perpetrated a fraud on the court and that vacating defendant's convictions was necessary to correct the fraud and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The government appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's motion due to his failure to first obtain certification from the Tenth Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. 2255, permitting him to file a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) limited the courts' power to correct fraud on the court and to prevent a miscarriage of justice when the court vacates a conviction in response to a second or successive habeas petition. "Although a district court may invoke these powers sua sponte, the district court here acted on Mr. Williams's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which is a second or successive petition." The Court therefore reversed the district court's order vacating defendant's conviction for lack of jurisdiction. But the Tenth Circuit exercised its discretion to treat defendant's appellate brief as a request to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h), and granted that request in part. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant supplied "significant" amounts of power cocaine to Virok Webb and his associates, who ran a drug distribution ring out of Junction City, Kansas. The Government charged Dewberry and several other codefendants with conspiracy to distribute 280 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of crack cocaine (Count 1) and conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of powder cocaine (Count 2). Only Dewberry went to trial; the other codefendants entered into plea agreements. A jury found Dewberry guilty on both charges. The jury also returned special verdicts pertaining to the amount of drugs and finding he conspired to distribute 280 grams or more of crack and 5 kilograms or more of powder. The district court sentenced. Dewberry to the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison on Count 1 and 168 months on Count 2. It determined both sentences would run concurrently. On appeal, Dewberry challenged: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence for the two conspiracy convictions; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury's finding that he was accountable for 280 grams or more of crack; (3) the district court's imposition of a 168-month prison term on Count 2; and (4) the district court's denial of his initial pretrial motion to sever. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Dewberry" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Jacoby, Derek Zar, and Susanne Zar appealed convictions and sentences arising from their participation in a mortgage fraud scheme. From 2005 to 2006, real estate agent Michael Jacoby devised and executed a mortgage fraud scheme involving the purchase of 18 residential properties in Colorado. Jacoby recruited willing sellers to sell homes at inflated prices, willing buyers to purchase the homes by obtaining mortgage loans based on falsified loan applications, and willing investors to supply short-term loans to cover the buyers' down payments. Jacoby acted as realtor for each transaction, while Derek Zar and his mother, Susanne Zar, were buyers. Derek Zar purchased seven of the properties with fraudulent loan applications and participated in the sales of four other properties either by arranging for the sale of or selling three properties to Susanne Zar and one to another buyer. Susanne Zar purchased six of the properties with fraudulent loan applications and participated in the sales of four other properties by preparing false documents to support Derek Zar's purchases. For some transactions, Jacoby arranged for sellers to "donate" part of the sales proceeds to grant programs without disclosing to lenders that the "donation" would be funneled back to buyers to repay short-term loans from investors covering the buyers' down payments. In other transactions, Jacoby arranged for back-to-back sales involving the same property. The government tried the defendants together, but each defendant separately appealed and filed separate briefs. Finding no reversible trial or sentencing errors as to any defendant, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Zar (Derek)" on Justia Law

In 2012, a federal grand jury indicted defendant-appellant Timothy Vanderwerff for three child-pornography-related offenses. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court erred in rejecting his initial (first) plea agreement with the government because it contained an appellate waiver. The government agreed with defendant, as did appointed amicus counsel, and all parties urged reversal and remand for resentencing. After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit also agreed that such relief is appropriate. Specifically, the Court concluded that the district court’s rejection of Vanderwerff’s plea agreement was premised on legally erroneous and irrelevant considerations; consequently, its action constituted an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Vanderwerff" on Justia Law