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

Defendant Roger Howard pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud, and one count of money laundering, arising from his participation in three mortgage-fraud schemes. Defendant's participation included identifying property buyers, arranging for their applications for mortgage loans to overstate assets and incomes, and obtaining inflated property appraisals and kickbacks to himself and some buyers. All buyers defaulted on their mortgage notes. Some notes had been sold by the original lenders to downstream lenders, who may themselves have resold the notes. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado sentenced defendant to 108 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $8,862,191.18 in restitution. He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the district court made two errors in imposing the sentence: (1) it improperly increased his offense level by miscomputing the loss to the mortgage lenders; and (2) it awarded restitution to alleged victims without evidence of their actual losses. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the determination of loss under USSG 2B1.1, which was calculated in accordance with precedent, but the Court largely agreed with Defendant’s restitution argument and therefore reversed the restitution order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma jury found Defendant Richard Fairchild guilty of child-abuse murder in the first degree and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) denied relief on all claims presented on direct appeal and in Defendant’s original application for postconviction review. After the federal district court denied relief on all claims presented in his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, Defendant appealed to the Tenth Circuit court. In that appeal, the Court addressed Defendant's claim that his counsel had been ineffective in failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the sentencing stage of his trial. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded to give Defendant the opportunity to exhaust in state court the “far more specific and powerful” ineffective-assistance claim he had raised in his section 2254 application but had not previously presented to the OCCA. After the OCCA denied Defendant’s second application for state postconviction relief on procedural grounds, the federal district court determined that the OCCA’s procedural bars were valid and that Defendant had not overcome them by demonstrating cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Defendant appealed again to the Tenth Circuit seeking relief on his section 2254 claims or, at least, an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance claim. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Fairchild v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Anthony Washington was driving from Oklahoma City of McAlester with a friend, Maurice Edwards, as passenger. The pair had borrowed a rental car from Edwards' mother. Authorities discovered 7.5 kilograms of marijuana and approximately 30 grams of methamphetamine in the car when it was pulled over. The men were ultimately charged with possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting. A jury found both men guilty, and both appealed. The Tenth Circuit already affirmed Edwards' conviction. At issue in this appeal was Washington's contention that the evidence was insufficient to link him to the drugs. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss Washington's indictment. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Darrell Havens pled guilty in Colorado state court to attempted assault of a police detective. He then brought suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the detective used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted the detective's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Havens failed to establish a prima facie case of excessive force and that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that Havens’ claim was barred under the Supreme Court decision "Heck v. Humphrey," (512 U.S. 477 (1994)), because he did not explain how the officer used excessive force in a way that would still be consistent with the basis of his attempted-assault conviction. View "Havens v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court initially ruled to suppress evidence of firearms seized during the arrest of Appellant Dana Huff, but the court agreed to reconsider the motion after the government presented a new legal basis for the seizure. Upon reconsideration of the motion to suppress, the court found the seizure to be proper. Huff argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the court improperly reconsidered the motion to suppress because the government provided no justification for its initial oversight and the law enforcement officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court could reconsider a motion to suppress without requiring the government to justify why it initially failed to set forth that legal basis for the seizure of evidence. The Court also held that the officers had sufficient probable cause to arrest Huff after seeing the firearms, one of which was being transported in violation of a local ordinance. View "United States v. Huff" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Jeremy Williams petitioned for habeas relief to challenge his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and the resultant death sentence. The district court denied habeas relief, but issued a certificate of appealability (COA), giving Williams an opportunity to appeal his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In addition, the Tenth Circuit agreed to hear Williams claims of insufficient evidence and cumulative prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding Williams was not entitled to relief. View "Williams v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Police were able to isolate one car in a group of twenty carrying a homing beacon from money stolen minutes earlier during a bank robbery. Twenty-nine minutes into the stop, police removed defendant Christian Paetsch from his car after seeing him act suspiciously and disobey their orders by putting his hands back inside his car. About an hour after this, and after police had removed everyone from their cars, they looked through Paetsch's car window and saw a money band that banks use to wrap currency. Soon afterward, an officer with a homing beacon isolated the tracker's signal as coming from Paetsch's car. In total, police detained the other 28 people for 2 hours and 18 minutes. After conditionally pleading guilty to a bank robbery and a firearm charge, Paetsch appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued that the barricade's group seizure was unreasonable at its inception and, if not, became unreasonable because of its duration and the police's tactics used during the barricade. The Tenth Circuit evaluated the police stop at two separate stages affecting Paetsch: first, the 29 minutes he was detained as part of the general barricade seizure, and, second, the 64 minutes or so after officers developed individualized suspicion of him due to his suspicious behavior. Finding that Paetsch's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated at either stage, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying his suppression motion. View "United States v. Paetsch" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant James White was a convicted sex offender who failed to keep his registration current after he moved from Oklahoma to Texas. He entered a conditional guilty plea admitting to violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), but reserved five issues for appeal. Three were challenges to his conviction on the grounds that SORNA violated the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Then defendant attacked his sentence, claiming the district court erred: (1) by calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range as if he were a tier III sex offender; and (2) by imposing special conditions of supervised release limiting his contact with his minor grandchildren and nieces. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that SORNA was the product of a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power, and that it did not violate the Tenth Amendment or the Ex Post Facto Clause. But the Court concluded the district court erred in classifying defendant as a tier III sex offender and vacated defendant's sentence and conditions of supervised release. Defendant's conviction was affirmed but the case remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The government applied for a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to defendant-appellee Jose Herrera's car. A magistrate judge ultimately approved the warrant. The tracking device was attached to defendant's car. Officers pulled defendant over and discovered drugs in a hidden compartment. The district court, in review of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the drugs, held that the warrant had been unlawfully issued and granted defendant's motion. In his motion to suppress, defendant argued that the government's conduct was in violation of "Franks v. Delaware," (438 U.S. 154 (1978)), which held that a Fourth Amendment violation occurs if: (1) an officer’s affidavit supporting a search warrant application contains a reckless misstatement or omission that (2) is material because, but for it, the warrant could not have lawfully issued. To win an evidentiary hearing to prove a Franks violation, a defendant must do more than allege a problem with the warrant. The government argued on appeal, inter alia, that the district court erred in applying both aspects of the Franks test. "[T]the district court ... never issued a factual finding that the confidential informant [used as the basis for the warrant] was generally untrustworthy... neither could the district court have done so on this record." The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court misapplied both portions of the Franks test, so its order suppressing evidence was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Herrera" on Justia Law

In 2012, authorities discovered 4800 child-pornography videos and images in defendant Jesse Evans' possession, 100 of which depicted his own minor daughters and his minor niece. Evans was charged with five counts of production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. He eventually entered a guilty plea to an added sixth count of production of child pornography. Over Evans's objection, the district court applied section 4B1.5(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which provided for a five-point sentence enhancement if "the defendant's instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct." The district court specifically found that Evans had produced child-pornography videos on November 5, 2011, and November 25, 2011, thus satisfying the "pattern of conduct" element of 4B1.5(b). The resultant Guidelines sentencing range was 360 months. The district court granted Evans's motion for a downward variance, and sentenced him to 252 months in prison. On appeal of the sentence, Evans argued that 4B1.5(b) did not apply to him because the "pattern of activity" requirement was not met. He also argued that the district court erred in applying 4B1.5(b) because the government did not request it, and he claimed the enhancement should not have been applied "in the interest of fairness." Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law