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

For this appeal, the issue presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether "Alleyne v. United States," (133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)) allowed a district court to enhance a criminal defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range for a 21 U.S.C. 841 conviction based on a judicial drug quantity finding greater than what the jury found at trial. After review, the Court held that, so long as the trial court does not use its own drug quantity finding to alter the defendant's statutory sentencing range, such an enhancement is entirely consistent with "Alleyne." Specific to this case, nothing indicated the trial court altered Defendant Timothy Cassius's statutory sentencing range in any way, so the court did not contravene Alleyne. View "United States v. Cassius" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Reginald Jerome Wray pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether Wray's prior conviction for "Sexual Assault - 10 Years Age Difference" under Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-3-402(1)(e) constituted a "crime of violence" as that phrase is used in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4B1.2. After review, the Court held that the Colorado crime did not qualify as a "crime of violence." The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Wray" on Justia Law

In August 2007, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Larry Barnes, charging him with crimes relating to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine. After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Barnes on both counts, and he was sentenced to sixty-six months’ incarceration on each count, to run concurrently, as well as a lengthy period of supervised release. While Barnes’s direct appeal was pending, the government acquired evidence indicating that material testimony offered at trial by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) special agent, an officer of the Tulsa Police Department, and a confidential informant had been fabricated. The government responded to the newly acquired evidence by asking the court to vacate Barnes’s conviction, to dismiss the indictment against him, and to release him from incarceration. In 2009, the district court entered an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to immediately release Mr. Barnes. Following his release, Barnes and his wife, Linda filed administrative tort claims with the BATF. About a year later, in 2011, the Barneses filed a civil lawsuit against the BATF in Oklahoma state court asserting various claims sounding in tort. The Barneses appealed the dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), based on its finding that the Barneses’ claims were time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). The Barneses argued on appeal that the district court misinterpreted the statute of limitations and further erred by failing to afford the Barneses the benefit of the doctrines of relation back, equitable tolling, and equitable estoppel. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Barnes v. United States" on Justia Law

Bryan Berres appealed following his conditional guilty plea to three counts of possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). He raised several challenges to the validity of those counts: (1) his conviction for possessing an unregistered flash bang device violated his due process rights because it was impossible for him, as a transferee of the device, to register it; (2) two section 5861(d) counts that were based on unassembled destructive devices; (3) these charges were multiplicitous because he possessed only a single combination of parts; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a law enforcement officer while in a hospital. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: controlling case law distinguished between firearms that may not be registered at all because their possession is banned, and those firearms that may be registered by a maker or a transferor, even if not by a transferee. Because the flash bang at issue falls into the latter category, Berres’ argument fails. Furthermore, the Court was unpersuaded by his argument that the implementing regulations for section 5861(d) required registration only for completed devices. Because Berres was properly charged with possessing two combinations designed or intended to create two destructive devices, the Court concluded the charges were not multiplicitous. The Court also agreed with the district court that suppression was inappropriate because Berres was not in custody at the time he made the statements. The Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Berres" on Justia Law

At his jury trial for being a felon in possession of ammunition defendant-appellant Gregory Lozado asked the district court to admit a hearsay statement from his brother-in-law, Novelle Farris, claiming ownership of the ammunition. The court excluded the statement because it did not meet the hearsay exception requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence (for a statement against interest). The jury convicted Lozado. The court sentenced him to prison for 235 months. Lozado appealed. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lozado" on Justia Law

Responding to a report of a "disoriented person" in a parking lot of a local stock show, officers located defendant-appellant Andre Gilmore. They briefly questioned him, conducted a pat-down search as part of taking him into protective custody. The search revealed a firearm in defendant's waistband. Defendant was then charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing the search of his person was illegal. After a suppression hearing, the district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Rayvell Vann was caught and convicted of carrying illegal drugs on an Amtrak train in New Mexico. He argued he did not receive a fair trial because: (1) the district court erred in denying his challenge to the government’s discriminatory strike of a potential juror because of the juror’s race; (2) the court erred in allowing expert testimony about the habits of drug traffickers; and (3) closing arguments misstated and embellished the evidence. Vann also argued the district court erred in permitting him to waive his right to counsel during sentencing and proceed pro se. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible errors, and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Vann" on Justia Law

Kenneth Wheeler was convicted of two counts of transmitting a threat in foreign commerce under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) based on Facebook posts that called upon his "religious followers" to carry out violent acts. Wheeler was sentenced to forty months’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, and three years' supervised release on each count, also to run concurrently. On appeal, Wheeler argued that his convictions should have been reversed because: (1) the jury was not properly instructed that it had to find Wheeler had a subjective intent to threaten in order to convict; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Wheeler transmitted a "true threat." Not persuaded that the evidence was insufficient to convict, but finding that the jury was not properly instructed, the Tenth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Charles Warner, Richard Glossip, John Grant, and Benjamin Cole, were all Oklahoma state prisoners convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. These plaintiffs were among a group of twenty-one Oklahoma death-row inmates who filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their executions until the district court could rule on the merits of their claims. The district court denied their request. Plaintiffs then appealed. Agreeing with the district court that plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Warner v. Gross" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Steven Denson had been convicted for armed robbery. After spending time in prison, he was on probation, when he stopped reporting to his probation officer, as required by the sentence he received. Authorities discovered his name on a residential Wichita utility account. A radar sweep of the house, plus other evidence suggested defendant was inside. Upon execution of their search warrant, officers found defendant inside with a stash of guns. Defendant would later plead guilty to federal firearms charges, but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) officers entered his home without reason the believe he was inside at the time; (2) officers lacked a lawful reason to search the home after his arrest; and (3) officers had no right to seize guns even after they found them. After review, the Tenth Circuit found that even without the radar, officers could have reasonably concluded defendant might have been inside the home based on the utility bill and the fact that defendant was at the time hiding from law enforcement, and the electric meter was "whirring away." "Did the officers' questionable search outside the home paradoxically negate their otherwise solid case for a search inside the home? ... in a criminal proceeding like ours the government is free to rely on facts gleaned independently from any Fourth Amendment violation. And in our case Mr. Denson acknowledges that all of the facts we’ve outlined above were discovered independently of the potentially problematic radar search - a fact that requires us to defer those questions to another day." Finding no merit to defendant's last contention regarding seizure of his guns, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. View "United States v. Denson" on Justia Law