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

Five individuals were convicted of murder under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (“VICAR”) Act: Arturo Garcia, Billy Garcia, Edward Troup, Andrew Gallegos, and Joe Gallegos. The five were members of the Syndicato de Nuevo México (“SNM”), a violent gang operating in and from New Mexico state prisons. After a joint trial, a jury convicted Billy Garcia, Troup, and Joe Gallegos for the 2001 SNM-ordered in-prison murders; Arturo Garcia and Troup for a 2007 SNM-ordered in-prison murder; and Andrew Gallegos and Joe Gallegos for a 2012 out-of-prison murder and conspiracy to murder. All five defendants separately appealed. Because their appeals arose from the same trial and raised many of the same or overlapping issues, the Tenth Circuit addressed them together. As relevant here, Count 1 alleged Billy Garcia, Troup, Joe Gallegos, and two others murdered Frank Castillo in 2001. Count 2 alleged that, on the same day, Billy Garcia and four others murdered Ronaldo Garza. Count 3 alleged that, in June 2007, Arturo Garcia, Troup, and three others murdered Freddie Sanchez. Counts 4 and 5 alleged Andrew Gallegos and Joe Gallegos conspired to murder and murdered Adrian Burns. Count 13 charged Joe Gallegos with assault of Jose Gomez with a dangerous weapon. And Counts 14 and 15 alleged Joe Gallegos and several others conspired to murder and attempted to murder Gomez. Counts 1 through 5 and 13 through 15 were charged pursuant to VICAR. Finally, Count 16 charged Joe Gallegos and others with the non-VICAR crime of witness tampering based on an attempt to prevent Gomez from testifying against Joe Gallegos. Because the Government failed to provide evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew Gallegos and Joe Gallegos conspired to murder and murdered Burns for a VICAR purpose, the Tenth Circuit vacated the convictions on counts 4 and 5; the Court affirmed the convictions on Counts 1 through 3. View "United States v. Garcia (Arturo)" on Justia Law

Defendant Nathan Pehrson was convicted on charges of diverting hydromorphone, a synthetic opioid known as "Dilaudid," while working as a nurse in a surgical trauma unit in early 2018. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court erred in allowing expert witness Dr. Ryan Paulsen to testify that the drug test on Defendant’s hair indicated that he had most likely ingested hydromorphone, and in allowing Dr. Richard Cox, who was not qualified as an expert, to give opinion testimony regarding Defendant’s diversion of the drug from its intended use for patients. The Tenth Circuit did not find the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Dr. Paulsen and any error in allowing the opinion testimony of Dr. Cox was harmless. View "United States v. Pehrson" on Justia Law

Defendant Eusebio DeVargas was indicted on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He moved ti dismiss his indictment, arguing that neither of his two previous felony convictions could have served as predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) because his civil rights were fully restored after he completed the sentences for each of those convictions. DeVargas also moved to suppress evidence that was seized at his residence at the time of his arrest, as well as post-arrest statements that he made to a law enforcement officer. After the district court denied both of his motions, DeVargas pleaded guilty to a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and, under the terms of his plea agreement, reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss and his motions to suppress. The Tenth Circuit rejected DeVargas’s arguments and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Devargas" on Justia Law

A district court revoked defendant-appellant Donald Booker’s supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Booker appealed, arguing the district court erroneously based his sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release on retribution. After review, the Tenth Circuit determined district courts could not modify or revoke a term of supervised release based on the need for retribution. Because the district court quoted from a 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor representing retribution, the district court erred. “But even assuming this error was plain, Mr. Booker has not shown that it affected his substantial rights because we conclude there is no reasonable probability that his sentence would have been shorter had the court not erred.” Accordinlgly, the Court affirmed Booker’s twenty-four-month sentence. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

Defendant Dominic Hunt appealed his convictions on two charges of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The ammunition was used in two shootings in early 2019. Investigators found three spent cartridges at the scene of one shooting and one spent cartridge at the other. A firearms expert testified that all four cartridges were fired from the same (undiscovered) weapon. Defendant’s sole issue raised on appeal was that the expert testimony should not have been admitted at trial: the expert’s field of firearm toolmark examination was not scientifically valid, and that the district court failed to perform its gatekeeping role in examining the admissibility of expert testimony because it relied on prior judicial opinions rather than the most up-to-date empirical evidence when it denied his pretrial motion to exclude the testimony without conducting a hearing. The Tenth Circuit held only that the district court adequately performed its gatekeeping role and did not err in admitting the testimony in light of the material presented on the pretrial motion and the expert testimony at trial. View "United States v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Petitioner Brenda Evers Andrew, an Oklahoma state prisoner convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court’s denial of her habeas petition seeking a new trial or resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Andrew was convicted of the 2001 shooting death of her husband Robert. A jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, two aggravating factors that warranted the death penalty: (1) Andrew committed the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration; and (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Andrew a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) on ten issues. Taking each in turn, but finding no reversible error in the denial of habeas relief, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the federal district court. View "Andrew v. White" on Justia Law

After the government charged defendant-appellant Steven O’Neil with violating the federal felon-in-possession statute, he moved to suppress eyewitness identification evidence and a gun seized from his backpack. The district court denied the motions. O’Neil appealed, arguing: (1) the identifications should have been excluded because they were unreliable; and (2) the district court erred in concluding the gun would have been inevitably discovered during an inventory search. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with O’Neil on both issues, and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. O'Neil" on Justia Law

After a drug-sniffing dog alerted to Defendant Neoal Hayes’ vehicle during a traffic stop, law enforcement officers uncovered 2,505 grams of methamphetamine and 10 grams of heroin inside a duffel bag located behind the driver’s seat. Inside a backpack, also located behind the driver’s seat, officers retrieved a small safe containing: more methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine; Xanax; marijuana; a digital scale; packing material; and a 45 caliber handgun with one round in the chamber and a magazine containing nine rounds. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and 60 months’ imprisonment on Count 2, to run consecutively. As part of his Rule 11 plea agreement, Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs and firearm. Defendant appeals, contending the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. In its order denying Defendant’s motion, the district court provided alternative bases for why the stop and search of Defendant’s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant acknowledges the stop of his vehicle was justified based on the officer’s suspicion that his driver’s license was suspended. But Defendant challenged all other aspects of the district court’s ruling: the facts known to the officer did not establish reasonable suspicion that he was transporting drugs, such that the officer’s stop and search of his vehicle could not be justified on that basis. Defendant also argued the officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop to pursue an investigation into drug trafficking that was unrelated to the original purpose for the stop. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hayes" on Justia Law

In December 2019, defendant-appellant Steven Anderson was stopped by police after a woman complained he was harassing her and an officer observed him walking in the street in violation of a city ordinance. Anderson provided the officers with false identifying information and was arrested for concealing his identity. During a search incident to arrest, law enforcement found a firearm and a crystal-like substance determined to be methamphetamine on his person. Following a failed motion to suppress, Anderson pled guilty to being a felon in possession. At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and sentenced Anderson to fifty-one months in prison. On appeal, Anderson challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the firearm was discovered in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He also argues the district court erroneously applied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), primarily because it relied on an uncorroborated police report not admitted into evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant Gerardo Jimenez was a habitual violator of immigration law. Between 1995 and the incident under review here, Defendant illegally entered the United States from his native Mexico and been returned there on nine previous occasions. He was convicted of heroin trafficking in Oklahoma state court, for which he received an eight-year prison sentence (four years suspended). The Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Defendant with one count of unlawfully reentering the United States as a removed alien. Defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and the case proceeded to sentencing. At sentencing, the district court first adopted the PSR without objection and denied Defendant’s motions for a downward departure. When the Government indicated it did not wish to be heard, the district judge decided to rule on the motion for variance before affording Defendant the opportunity to allocute. After making this statement, and explaining his rationale in greater detail, the district judge invited Defendant to allocute. Defendant apologized for his wrongdoing and promised he would not offend again. Apparently unpersuaded, the district judge sentenced Defendant to 57 months’ imprisonment—the maximum under the guideline range. On appeal, Defendant contended the district judge violated his right to allocution at sentencing. Defendant did not object to this alleged violation before the district court. The Tenth Circuit determined that reversing under the circumstances here would represent an expansion of existing precedents, and that a case on plain error review was not the appropriate occasion for it to broaden the application of circuit caselaw. The Court affirmed the district court based on a plain error review. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law