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

Petitioner Elia Ibarra was ordered removed by the Department of Homeland Security for a Colorado conviction on child abuse. The events leading up to her conviction were unclear, but it was undisputed that petitioner's children were unintentionally left home alone while she was at work. No child was injured. Petitioner requested discretionary relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case decided that she was ineligible cancellation of removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit to review the immigration judge's decision that found her Colorado conviction for "child abuse-negligence-no injury" was the same as (or close enough to be categorically considered) "child abuse, neglect or abandonment" as codified under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the Board of Immigration Appeals' then-current interpretation of "child abuse, neglect and abandonment" extended the full range of conduct criminalized by the Colorado statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed the BIA's decision rendering petitioner ineligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. View "Ibarra v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

A methamphetamine dealer and several of his buyers and sellers were indicted for their alleged involvement in a distribution conspiracy. Defendant-buyer Jesus Figueroa-Labrada was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute. His presentence report (PSR) doubled his Sentencing Guidelines range. The sentencing court adopted the PSR but made no particularized findings on defendant's relevant conduct. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculation of methamphetamine attributed to him and the court's failure to make particularized findings. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed on defendant's second challenge and remanded the case for particularized findings and resentencing. View "United States v. Figueroa-Labrada" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Daniel Renteria, Alex Garcia, Jr., and Miguel Ordaz were convicted on various counts relating to a drug conspiracy in two states. Defendants' appeals were consolidated in this opinion. All challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against them, the admission of certain evidence, and the calculation of their sentences. Because the Tenth Circuit found no error in the trial court's judgment (harmless or otherwise), the Court affirmed their respective convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Renteria" on Justia Law

What started as a routine inspection of Defendant-Appellant Norman Washington Berry’s commercial tractor-trailer at a New Mexico port of entry ended with his conviction for possessing with intent to deliver 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (the drugs were nestled inside the fruit crates). Defendant argued on appeal that a "permissive inference" in a jury instruction was given in error, in addition, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, particularly as it established the weight of the marijuana to be more than 100 kilograms. Furthermore, he claimed his sentence ought not to have been enhanced based on his use of a special skill (commercial truck driving) to help commit the crime. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner-appellant Donte Lamonte Parker appealed the denial of his section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. His request for a certificate of appealability (COA) was also denied by the district judge, prompting him to resubmit his application to the Tenth Circuit. Finding not error in the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. Furthermore, because he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court denied petitioner's application for a COA. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

The government alleged Defendant-Appellant Richard Clark, along with other co-conspirators, manipulated shares of several penny-stocks by using false and backdated documents to make those shares publically tradable, then coordinated the trading among themselves to create the false appearance of an active market for those shares. The shares were sold after the prices surged. The conspirators laundered the proceeds through multiple bank accounts and nominees (a "pump-and-dump" scheme). Defendant was charged and convicted on multiple counts for his participation in the scheme. He appealed his conviction to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) the pretrial placement of a caveat on his property violated his constitutional rights; (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the district court erred in refusing to appoint additional or substitute counsel better versed in complex securities issues; (4) the district court erred by failing to sever his case from his co-conspirator's; and (5) his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated by a fourteen-month delay between filing of the indictment and the start of trial. The Tenth Circuit addressed each of Defendant's contentions in its opinion, but found no discernible error. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendants Randy Dyke and Don Steele were caught in a government undercover sting operation and charged with drug, forgery and counterfeiting charges. A jury rejected their entrapment defense. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendants argued (among other things) that the charges against them should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been dismissed as a matter of law because the undercover operation amounted to "outrageous governmental conduct." After a lengthy analysis, the Court declined to adopt other circuits' use of an "outrageous governmental conduct" standard, concluding that defendants failed to persuade the Court that they might prevail under any of the tests suggested by the case law. Defendants argued in the alternative that they were entrapped, the evidence presented against them was insufficient to support the charges against them, and that the trial court erred in calculating their sentences. Finding no entrapment, that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions, and no error in their sentences, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Dyke" on Justia Law

Defendant Fabian Dunbar pled guilty to distributing cocaine, for which he received a 48-month prison sentence pursuant to a plea agreement. The agreement also stated the parties would recommend defendant receive a 12-month consecutive sentence for violating a term of supervised release from a 2006 sentence. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendant argued: (1) the district court conducted an inadequate inquiry into his request for new counsel (and abused its discretion by denying that request); (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his pro se requests to withdraw the plea agreement; (3) the plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily (because counsel gave him inaccurate information); and (4) his sentence regarding supervised release was unreasonable. Finding no merit to any of defendant's four claims of error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Petitioner David Magnan pled guilty to three county of murder in the first degree and one count of shooting with intent to kill. He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction, and to life for the shooting. In his application for habeas relief to the district court, Petitioner argued that his crimes took place in "Indian country," and that as a result, the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that a 1970 conveyance of property from the Seminole Nation to the federal Housing Authority extinguished any "Indian Country" designation; even assuming that the Seminole Nation retained some rights to the property in question, those rights were insufficient to deprive the State of criminal jurisdiction. The district court denied the writ application but granted a certificate of appealability. After its review of the case, the Tenth Circuit concluded that conveyance of the surface estate to the land in which the crimes took place were insufficient to extinguish Seminole Nation control over it. Therefore, the land in question was indeed "Indian Country" and therefore the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over the crimes. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case with instructions to grant Petitioner habeas relief. View "Magnan v. Workman, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Siale Angilau was indicted by a Utah grand jury for the shooting deaths of two deputy U.S. Marshals. One count charged racketeering conspiracy; assaulting a federal officer, assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant moved to dismiss the three shooting-related charges as barred by Double Jeopardy, because those charges had been dismissed in his federal prosecution. The court granted the motion as to the assault count, but denied as to the firearms counts. Defendant appealed that ruling while his case was pending trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear defendant's double-jeopardy claim, but lacked jurisdiction for any others still pending. The Court concluded there was no merit to defendant's double jeopardy claim, and neither firearms charges were barred by collateral estoppel because the prior dismissal of those charges did not resolve any element of the charges in his favor. View "United States v. Angilau" on Justia Law