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

Defendant-Appellant Andre Haymond was convicted of one count of possession or attempted possession of child pornography after federal agents discovered Defendant had downloaded the child pornography from a filesharing website. The government based its case at trial on seven images found after the FBI's investigation. Before trial, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence and statements obtained during the search of his home and the related forensic search of his computer on the grounds that the underlying search warrant was issued without probable cause. Following trial, Defendant moved for acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. Ultimately Defendant was sentenced to thirty-eight months in prison and ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction. Finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict against him, and that alleged procedural errors at trial were harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Haymond" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael McGaughy pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months' imprisonment. Months later, Appellant filed a "2255" motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and asked for resentencing. The district court conferred informally with the parties, and the government agreed to re-sentencing. At re-sentencing, the district court again sentenced Appellant to 46 months' imprisonment, and dismissed the 2255 motion as moot. Appellant then filed another motion to correct sentence under both Rule 35(a) and 2255, this time arguing that at re-sentencing the government presented materially false information regarding his efforts to cooperate with the government before pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the re-sentencing raised three related issues: (1) whether the court retained jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant under 2255 because it never granted the petition (instead dismissing it as moot after re-sentencing); (2) whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on Appellant's Rule 35(a) claim after the Rule’s 14-day time limit lapsed; (3) whether the district court properly denied Appellant's second 2255 claim. The Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant, but that his challenge to his re-sentencing was untimely because Rule 35’s 14-day time limitation is jurisdictional. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's 2255 claim, vacated the denial of his Rule 35(a) claim and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss the Rule 35(a) claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. McGaughy" on Justia Law

A New Mexico jury convicted former prison guard Defendant-Appellant John Gould of two counts of depriving an inmate of his rights under color of law, and two counts of filing a false report. The convictions arose out of Defendant's use of excessive force against two inmates in two different detention centers and his filing of false reports to cover the incidents up. On appeal, Defendant sought reversal of all the charges against him, arguing that the delay between his conviction and the entry of the final judgment violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence. Finding no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights, and finding that if there was an error in excluding the evidence, it was harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. View "United States v. Gould" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Salvador Mendoza-Lopez appeals his sentence, arguing the district court denied him his right of allocution. Mendoza-Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a sentence of seventy months. Defendant filed motions for departure and variance, seeking a forty-month sentence. He argued he qualified for a downward departure under the Guidelines because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his prior record. At sentencing, Defendant's counsel reiterated at length his arguments for a departure and variance. The district court, in a lengthy statement from the bench, denied both motions and accepted the PSR's recommended Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. Immediately thereafter the court said: "[i]t's the Court['s] intention to sentence within that Guideline range." It then invited both Defendant's counsel, and Defendant himself to address "where within that range this Court should sentence." The court assured defense counsel it had taken into account the Guidelines' factors and would continue to do so when it imposed sentence. At his opportunity to speak, Defendant said: "I would simply like to say that I apologize, I’m sorry for having come back. I’d like you to know that I have small children in Mexico who need me to support them by working. That’s really all." The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months, stating that it was "sympathetic with the fact that the defendant has a wife and two small children that very much need him back home." Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing the district court violated his right of allocution by definitively announcing its intention to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range before inviting him to speak. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by inviting Defendant to speak with respect to where within the Guidelines range the court should sentence him. This error, however, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Mendoza-Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Glenn Damato appealed his 96-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He argued that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs by including as relevant conduct a drug transaction that occurred more than thirteen years prior to what he was convicted of in this case. The government argued that the old transaction was part of the "same course of conduct." Upon reivew, the Tenth Circut could not agree with the government’s argument: "the thirteen-year interval at issue far exceeds the gap between relevant conduct and the charged offense in the case law of any circuit including our own. Further, that extreme lack of temporal proximity was not mitigated by strong evidence of regularity or similarity." Nevertheless, the Court exercised its discretion to consider an alternative basis to affirm, and concluded that the prior transaction qualified as relevant conduct because it and the current conviction were part of a "common scheme or plan." With that, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Damato" on Justia Law

Defendant Casimiro Loya-Rodriguez appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He contended the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself both at trial and at sentencing. Upon review, the Tenth circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction because he failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself at trial. But the Court remanded the case to the district court to vacate his sentence and then resentence him because he did make such a request to represent himself at sentencing. View "United States v. Loya-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jonathan McGehee was found guilty by jury of possessing with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed his conviction and sentence arguing that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop where police discovered narcotics and a firearm; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that he possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense; and (3) the district court erred by denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. McGehee" on Justia Law

A confidential informant purchased controlled substances from Defendant Willie West in controlled buys. Some of these purchases occurred at Defendant's apartment in Lawrence, Kansas, which was within 1000 feet of Holcom Park. A grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of possessing marijuana within 1000 feet of a public playground with an intent to distribute, and one count of maintaining a place within 1000 feet of a public playground for the purpose of distributing marijuana. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Holcom Park was a statutory "playground" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. secs. 841(a) and 860(a). At the close of the Government's case, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to establish that Holcom Park was a "playground." The district court denied Defendant's motion. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. In denying Defendant's subsequent motion for a new trial, the district court referenced the Government's argument that "[e]ven if the jury found the [jungle gyms] constituted one apparatus, . . . the . . .baseball diamonds, volleyball courts, and Holcom’s other amenities are each apparatus intended for the recreation of children." Defendant appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. West" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Abram Venzor-Granillo appealed the district court’s application of an eight-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He argued the district court erred by using the modified categorical approach to conclude his prior Colorado conviction for first degree criminal trespass was a theft offense, warranting the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly applied the modified categorical approach because the Colorado statute under which Defendant was convicted was ambiguous: it reached a broad range of conduct, some of which merit the enhancement and some of which do not. The charging document and plea agreement underlying Defendant's prior conviction revealed he admitted all the elements of the generic offense of attempt to commit theft. Therefore, the district court did not err in imposing the sentence enhancement. View "United States v. Venzor-Granillo" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Raul Rosales-Garcia pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 37 months. On appeal Defendant challenged his sentence, alleging that the district court incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed the district court's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Rosales-Garcia" on Justia Law