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

In 1973, appellant David Tokoph was convicted for his participation in a series of fraudulent loan transactions. He was sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (repealed in 1984). In 2012, Tokoph filed a motion to seal and expunge records of that conviction. The district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed in the motion and dismissed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Tokoph v. United States" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Deanta Long of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, attempting to manufacture 28 grams or more of cocaine base, possessing cocaine with intent to manufacture cocaine base, and possessing firearms in furtherance of drug-trafficking crimes. On appeal, he challenged the affidavit for the search warrant that led to discovery of the evidence against him. Defendant argued: (1) the affidavit failed to provide probable cause because it did not identify or adequately describe him and the informant’s information was not corroborated by police investigation of the alleged criminal activity; (2) that he was entitled to a hearing under "Franks v. Delaware," (438 U.S. 154 (1978)), to challenge the veracity of the affiant officer; and (3) that the district court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery of information regarding the informant. Defendant also challenges the admission of a compact disc (CD) found in the apartment that was titled “Cokeland” and had his picture on the cover. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Defendant Raul Cruz was convicted by a jury of knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment. Cruz subsequently filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence on the grounds that the search warrant when executed on Cruz’s residence was neither signed nor dated by the issuing judge. The district court denied Cruz relief on that claim. Cruz appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Cruz" on Justia Law

In late 2011, the Government filed an information against defendant Ronald Catrell, charging him with various fraud-related crimes. The information was filed with the understanding that Defendant would plead guilty. Defendant, however, fled the jurisdiction after posting bond and was only returned to Kansas after authorities arrested him in South Carolina in July 2012. He then entered a different, binding plea agreement with the Government under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Per this agreement, Defendant would receive 120 months in prison for bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft. Defendant thereafter pled guilty to these four felony counts. Before sentencing, however, and after a lengthy hearing, the district court allowed Defendant to withdraw this guilty plea. The Government then procured an indictment against Defendant with over a dozen new criminal counts. Within weeks, Defendant entered into a new Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with the Government. This time, Defendant plead guilty to the same four crimes as before and receive 132 months in prison. Later, at sentencing, Defendant opined in allocution that the new indictment was “punishment for withdrawing the [earlier guilty] plea” and that “I feel like there’s no choice but to accept” the new plea agreement. Upon questioning, however, he again reiterated that he nevertheless willingly entered the agreement and willingly pled guilty, fully aware that his sentence would be 132 months. Defendant appealed the sentence to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) a portion of the sentence illegally exceeded a statutory maximum; and (2) the Government vindictively insisted on a plea agreement recommending 132 months in prison. Per precedent, the Tenth Circuit concluded after review that the district court gave Defendant an “illegal sentence” for aggravated identity theft. The case was therefore remanded for this plain error to be corrected. View "United States v. Catrell" on Justia Law

A grand jury issued an indictment charging defendant-appellant Michael Hood with two counts of being a felon in possession: count one, possession of a firearm related to a string of burglaries at an Oklahoma City apartment complex; count two, possession of a component part of ammunition. Hood filed an unsuccessful pretrial motion to suppress the firearm seized from his jacket, and an unsuccessful motion to exclude any testimony or evidence about the burglary investigation leading to his arrest. A jury convicted Hood on both counts. On appeal, Hood primarily argued that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. In addition, he challenged his sentence, arguing that he did not qualify for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "United States v. Hood" on Justia Law

Jay Black pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country. The sex act was consensual; at the time of the act, Black was 18 and the victim was 14; and a comparison of Black’s and the victim’s birthdays demonstrated Black was 55 months older than the victim. At sentencing, Black claimed he was not required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) because his conduct fell within the terms of section 16911(5)(C). Using what he asserted was the colloquial or ordinary understanding of age, Black argued the age difference between him and the victim must be figured by subtracting the integers representing completed years of life, without regard for the number of months or days separating their dates of birth (i.e., subtracting the victim’s 14 years of completed life from his 18 years of completed life resulted, according to Black, in a 4-year age difference, an age difference within the parameters of the exception set out in the statute). The district court rejected Black’s assertion and concluded section 16911(5)(C) required a comparison of the birth dates of the offender and victim to determine the relevant age difference. Black appealed. Joining the only other circuit to consider this question, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded “not more than 4 years older than the victim” meant no more than 1461 days or 48 months separate the birthdays of the sex offender and the victim, and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

The district judge noted that defendant-appellant Elder Sabillon-Umana was a "bit player" in a larger drug operation. In that light, the sentencing judge stated that he thought a guidelines base offense level of 32 sounded right and he asked the probation officer to offer some justification for that number. The officer told the court that finding Sabillon-Umana responsible for 1.5 kilograms of cocaine and 1.5 kilograms of heroin sold by the larger conspiracy would yield the court’s desired base offense level. By the hearing’s end, the district court adopted those findings as its own and imposed a sentence based on them. The district court is supposed to start with the facts, then consult empirics about similarly situated defendants and the expertise of the Sentencing Commission, and only then make an individualized judgment about the case at hand informed by that information. The district court in this case failed to follow that order, and this, the Tenth Circuit concluded, was error. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sabillon-Umana" on Justia Law

Tarran Brinson was charged with various offenses involving trafficking in child prostitution. At trial, the prosecutor presented expert testimony on the operation of child prostitution rings, testimony by three men who had sex with a prostitute, and evidence consisting of electronic messages. Brinson was convicted and he appealed, raising six issues pertaining to: (1) the qualification of the prosecution's expert witness; (2) the admission into evidence Facebook posts and certain text messages; (3) the admission of certain statements of an unidentified declarant; (4) the admission of a "testimonial document" without allowing cross-examination of the person creating the document; (5) the admission of certain evidence incident to Brinson's arrest; and (6) the overall sufficiency of the other evidence presented against him. Finding no reversible error in any of the trial court's decisions with regard to these issues, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Brinson's conviction. View "United States v. Brinson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Julius Darius Jones was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of the 1999 murder of Paul Howell, as well as conspiracy to commit a felony (robbery of a vehicle with firearms) and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, Jones was sentenced to death for the murder conviction, 25 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction, and 15 years’ imprisonment for the possession of a firearm conviction. The two terms of imprisonment were ordered to be served consecutively. After exhausting his state court remedies, Jones sought federal habeas relief by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied that petition and also denied Jones a certificate of appealability (COA). Jones appealed, and the Tenth Circuit granted him a COA as to a single claim: whether Jones’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek evidence corroborating a confession purportedly made by Jones’s coconspirator. After review, the Court rejected that claim and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Jones v. Trammell" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the criminal case of Adrian Hernandez. Hernandez pled guilty to two counts conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 60 months in prison. Hernandez did not appeal. The District Court sanctioned Hernandez's defense attorney for contempt. The attorney appealed, setting forth five alleged issues for review, all resting on an assumption that the district court erred by employing the summary contempt procedures of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 42(b) applicable to direct contempt rather than affording him the full panoply of notice-and-hearing procedures available under Rule 42(a) applicable to indirect contempt. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hernandez (Velasco)" on Justia Law