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

In 2006, United States Postal Inspectors learned Crosby Powell had deposited checks stolen from the United States mail into his accounts at TCF Bank, UMB Bank, and Wells Fargo. An investigation revealed Powell had altered payee information or forged endorsements on some of the stolen checks. The United States obtained a superseding indictment charging Powell with eleven counts of uttering or possessing forged checks, and seventeen counts of possessing stolen mail. At trial, the government sought to prove the forged checks were “of an organization” by presenting evidence that each bank into which the forged checks were deposited was a federally insured bank operating in interstate commerce. The jury convicted Powell on the first eleven counts set out in the indictment. In his appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Powell raised three challenges to his convictions, all of which were raised for the first time on appeal, all of which were raised on the same premise: at no point during his possession or utterance of the forged checks were the checks "of" the banks into which they were deposited. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the forged checks were not "of" the depository banks. Because Powell did not raise his arguments before the district court, however, he was not entitled to relief unless he could "successfully run the gauntlet created by our rigorous plain-error standard of review." The Court found that Powell could not satisfy this burden as to all counts of conviction. Accordingly, the Court: (1) affirmed Powell’s convictions as to Counts 10, 13, and 20; and (2) remanded the case to the district court so it could vacate the remaining convictions and take any other necessary actions. View "United States v. Powell" on Justia Law

Gustave Brune repeatedly failed to update his sex offender status as required by Kansas and federal law. When arrested for these failures, the arresting agents found images of child pornography on Brune’s computer. He was eventually indicted in federal court for failure to update the sex offender registry and possession of child pornography, and convicted on both charges. Brune argued on appeal: (1) that a subsection of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was unconstitutional; and (2) the statute that criminalizes possessing, or accessing with the intent to view, materials containing images of child pornography was unconstitutionally overbroad because it proscribed significant amounts of speech and conduct protected by the First Amendment. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Brune's motions to dismiss his indictment. View "United States v. Brune" on Justia Law

Defendant Aaron Heineman was convicted after a bench trial on one count of sending an interstate threat. The district court found that in 2010 and 2011, Defendant sent three e-mails espousing white supremacist ideology to a professor at the University of Utah. The first two e-mails did not contain threats, but the third made the professor fear for his safety and the safety of his family. Defendant argued that his conviction violated the First Amendment because the court did not also find that he intended the recipient to feel threatened. Agreeing with Defendant, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Heineman" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Vincent Watson was convicted by a jury of five counts relating to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. He argued on appeal: (1) that his second counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately pursue, and communicate with him about, the possibility of entering into a plea agreement with the government; (2) that the district court violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act by granting the government an ends-of-justice continuance following his co-defendant’s decision to plead guilty and cooperate with the government a week before trial was scheduled to begin; and (3) that the district court improperly admitted testimony regarding Mr. Watson’s previous cultivation and distribution of marijuana. Finding no reversible error as to any of defendant's contentions on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on a district court's authority to grant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Defendant Joseph White was initially charged with 16 drug- and gun-related counts. The government agreed to drop all remaining counts against him in exchange for his pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. White was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment outside of the advisory guideline range: after the sentencing court imposed a mandatory 60-month sentence for all section 924(c) convictions, it exercised its discretion and departed upward by an additional 87 months to account for the drug trafficking conduct that gave rise to White's conviction but which had been dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement. The 87-month figure was computed under old crack cocaine guidelines as if White had in fact been convicted of possessing crack. When the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the crack cocaine guidelines in response to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, White filed a pro se section 3582(c)(2) motion and requested that the district court reduce his 87-month departure to accord with the new crack cocaine guidelines. The district court disagreed with White's argument that the rejected crack guidelines played a role in his original sentence, so that he should have been eligible for a sentence reduction to correct that disparity. Recognizing that the Sentencing Commission enacted a policy statement that expressly precluded courts from reducing a departure portion of an originally imposed sentence, the court denied White's sentence modification motion. White appealed, arguing that the policy statement could not mean what it said: either because it was inconsistent with the plain language section 3582(c)(2), or because it produced an absurd result, or if consistent and rational, because it violated the Constitution's nondelegation and separation of powers principles. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review of the case that White did not show that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. "It is well-settled in this circuit, and elsewhere, that the range upon which a sentence is 'based' is the range produced under the guidelines' sentencing table after a correct determination of the defendant's total offense level and criminal history category but prior to any discretionary departures." The district court did not err in holding that White was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 3582(c)(2). However, his motion should have been dismissed, not on the merits, but on lack of jurisdictional grounds. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

After methamphetamine was recovered from his carry-on luggage on a Greyhound bus, Defendant-Appellant Peter Tubens was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Tubens pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him, asserting that it had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following a hearing and full briefing by both parties, the district court issued a written decision denying the motion. Tubens proceeded to trial, where he was found guilty by jury and subsequently sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment, followed by sixty months' supervised release. Tubens appealed, reasserting his claim that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Tubens" on Justia Law

Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") officers searched defendant Sanchez-Leon's home, discovering methamphetamine, firearms, and cash. A federal grand jury charged Sanchez-Leon with violating various federal drug laws. On the first day of trial, he changed his plea to guilty. He later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. The district court sentenced him to 295 months in prison. Sanchez-Leon appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea as not entered knowingly or voluntarily. He also appealed his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions and defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Sanchez-Leon" on Justia Law

James Woods and several others were indicted for participating in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Woods’s defense theory at trial was that he and the cooperating witnesses did not deal in methamphetamine, foreclosing Woods’s involvement in the charged conspiracy. Defense counsel argued the cooperators were lying about the charged conspiracy to obtain favorable treatment from the government as part of their plea bargain arrangements. In response to this line of attack, during his closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury, among other things, that, if the drug conspiracy was about “anything other than meth, then why would those witnesses all come in and plead guilty to . . . conspiracy to distribute meth?” Although Woods did not object to the prosecutor’s closing argument, he argued on appeal that the district court committed plain error in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial or instruct the jury to disregard the objectionable statements. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Thomas Hale filed for bankruptcy in 2005. During the course of that bankruptcy, he allegedly lied under oath and attempted to conceal from the bankruptcy trustee an agreement to sell property. After his relationship with the trustee became antagonistic, Hale sent her a package with unidentified material and a note that said, "Possible Haz-mat? Termites or Hanta virus [sic] from mice?" In 2013, Hale was convicted of making a materially false statement under oath in a bankruptcy case, concealing a contract from the bankruptcy trustee and creditors, and perpetrating a hoax regarding the transmission of a biological agent. Upon review of Hale's appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: "instead of charging Hale with 'making a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury' with regard to his representations in [his bankruptcy petition,] Hale was charged with falsely answering a temporally ambiguous question that inquired about numerous filings and was asked nearly a year after the documents were submitted. We do not think it proper to condone the prosecution’s creation of this ambiguity. We thus conclude that the error 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" The Court reversed the conviction with regard to the false statement, but affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Hale" on Justia Law

Petitioner John Doe was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in Oklahoma and sentenced to life without parole. His direct appeal was unsuccessful and he did not file for a writ of certiorari, an application for state post-conviction relief, or a federal habeas petition. He was separately convicted in federal court for robbery of a federally insured bank, which took place in connection with the Oklahoma murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment for that crime. While serving the federal life sentence in Texas, petitioner was convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. The government introduced evidence of petitioner’s Oklahoma murder conviction during the sentencing phase of his federal capital case, and he was subsequently sentenced to death. Petitioner filed this first habeas petition and an almost identical post-conviction relief application in state court, challenging the constitutionality of a prior Oklahoma state court conviction based on evidence of actual innocence. He also filed a motion to abate this section 2254 action pending state court exhaustion of his claims. The district court dismissed his habeas petition without prejudice, adopting a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and holding that a stay under "Rhines v. Weber," (544 U.S. 269 (2005)), was not available because the petition was not "mixed" as in "Rhines" and, in any event, because petitioner lacked good cause for the stay. Although the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court’s reasoning regarding the potential application of Rhines, it affirmed its denial of a stay. View "Doe v. Jones, et al" on Justia Law