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

Linda Zotigh was murdered, and her trailer, in which her boyfriend Tommy Bullcoming also periodically resided, was set on fire. The day after law enforcement found Zotigh’s body, they arrested Bullcoming pursuant to a warrant for failure to appear in court on an earlier marijuana possession charge. At the time of his arrest, Bullcoming had a black duffel bag in his possession, and he asked law enforcement to bring the bag with them during his transport to the courthouse. Law enforcement searched the bag on three separate occasions and used information from these searches in the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant. Following issuance of a search warrant, law enforcement found a pair of sandals spotted with blood inside the bag. Authorities later matched the blood to Zotigh. Prior to his trial, Bullcoming moved both for an order to access Zotigh’s trailer and to suppress evidence from the duffel bag. The district court denied both motions. A jury ultimately convicted Bullcoming of felony murder, kidnapping, carjacking, and arson. On appeal, Bullcoming challenged the denial of both of his motions. At the time Bullcoming filed his motion for access to the trailer, a third party, not the Government, possessed it. The district court ultimately held it did not have authority “to order entry and inspection of property that is not within the government’s possession, custody, or control.” The Tenth Circuit concurred the district court lacked authority to grant Bullcoming access to the trailer. With regard to the search of the bag, Bullcoming argued the searches were illegal. The Tenth Circuit concluded probable cause supported the search warrant for Bullcoming's bag. The district court's denials of Bullcoming's motions were affirmed. View "United States v. Bullcoming" on Justia Law

This appeal raised a question of first impression: whether, under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), it was unreasonable for a district court to impose a harsher sentence based on a defendant’s decision to plead guilty without a plea agreement. Defendant-appellant Leroya Cozad was indicted on a single charge of aiding and abetting the making of counterfeit currency. During plea negotiations, she offered to plead guilty in exchange for the government’s recommendation that she be sentenced to 48 months’ probation. The government countered with an offer to recommend a custodial sentence at the low end of the guideline range. She declined and entered an open plea. Following her plea, probation prepared a presentence investigation report that recommended a custodial sentence of between 24 and 30 months based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The PSR’s guideline calculation reflected probation’s conclusion that Cozad had “clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for the offense” and was therefore due a reduction of two levels under section 3E1.1(a) of the guidelines. Neither party objected to the PSR, although both submitted sentencing memoranda advocating for their preferred outcome: Cozad advocated for a term of probation; the government recommended the same recommendation it had offered to make during the plea negotiations. The district court rejected both recommendations and sentenced Cozad to a prison term of 27 months, the midpoint of the guideline range. "That Ms. Cozad’s sentence was the result of the district court’s own custom is significant." The Tenth Circuit held that under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), it was procedurally unreasonable for the district court to impose a harsher sentence based on defendant's decision to enter an open plea. Because the district court abused its discretion, Cozad’s sentence was vacated and her case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cozad" on Justia Law

Appellant Ramar Palms was convicted by jury in the Northern District of Oklahoma on three crimes related to sex trafficking. On appeal, Palms sought to reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial because: (1) the district court should have suppressed the evidence obtained from his cell phone because the warrant and the search of his cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it excluded sexual behavior evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 because the exclusion violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Tenth Circuit held that the warrant to search Palms’s cell phone was sufficiently particular and the search was reasonable. Further, the Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding sexual behavior evidence under Rule 412. Therefore, Palms’s convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Palms" on Justia Law

Appellant Wilkie Bill Burtrum was found guilty of one count of aggravated sexual abuse and one count of sexual abuse in Indian country. Because Burtrum had previously been convicted of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country, the district court sentenced him to mandatory life imprisonment on the first count pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3559(e). The court sentenced him to 360 months on the second count. And it ordered Burtrum to pay the victim $5,850 in restitution for the equivalent of a year-and-a-half of weekly equine therapy sessions. Appealing, Burtrum argue his aggravated sexual abuse conviction was supported by insufficient evidence, his mandatory life sentence was unconstitutional, and a portion of the restitution award was not reasonably certain or supported by sufficient evidence. After review, the Tenth Circuit held: (1) the aggravated sexual abuse conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the mandatory life sentence was constitutional; and (3) the restitution award was a reasonably certain estimate supported by evidence. Therefore, judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Burtrum" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jesus Francisco Fernandez was convicted by jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The methamphetamine was discovered during a search at the Albuquerque Greyhound bus terminal of luggage on a bus on which Fernandez was a passenger. On appeal, Fernandez argued: (1) his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence that the luggage was his; (2) the search of the luggage by law-enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and (3) he was denied due process by Greyhound’s failure to record or preserve terminal surveillance video, allegedly as the agent of law-enforcement officers. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Fernandez's conviction. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant Angelita Benally was responsible for a head-on car crash that resulted in the death of her front seat passenger and severely injured the other driver. Benally was indicted on one count of involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Benally and the government entered into a written plea agreement, under the terms of which, Benally pleaded guilty to the involuntary manslaughter charge and the government dismissed the assault charge. The agreement also provided that the district court would order restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). The district court sentenced Benally to a term of imprisonment of thirty months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the district court ordered Benally to pay restitution pursuant to the MVRA to the deceased passenger’s family and to the other driver. Benally appealed the district court’s restitution order, arguing initially that the district court lacked authority under the MVRA to order her to pay restitution to the other driver because he was not a victim of the involuntary manslaughter offense. After the parties filed their appellate briefs, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). Benally argued that in light of Borden, the district court lacked authority to order restitution “under the MVRA at all,” and instead “may only grant restitution in its discretion under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). The Tenth Circuit found Benally failed to establish her entitlement to plain-error relief, and accordingly affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Benally" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant-appellant Jamshid Muhtorov on three counts of conspiring and providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union (“IJU”), a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda. On appeal, he argued the foreign intelligence surveillance methods the government used to collect his communications were unconstitutional. He also questioned the district court’s refusal to disclose the classified materials the government used to secure approvals for the surveillance, the types of surveillance techniques used, and the evidence derived therefrom. Finally, defendant claimed his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated. After careful consideration, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Muhtorov" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Bakhtiyor Jumaev and his co-defendant Jamshid Muhtorov were convicted, after separate trials, of conspiring to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (the Islamic Jihad Union, “IJU”), and knowingly providing or attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Both appealed, and, with the parties’ consent, the Tenth Circuit procedurally consolidated the cases. In an opinion issued concurrently with this one, the Court rejected Muhtorov’s claims, including his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim, and affirmed his convictions. In this decision, the Court addressed Jumaev’s claims: (1) his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated; (2) the district court abused its discretion by declining to severely sanction the government for its discovery conduct; and (3) the extraterritorial search warrants for his home, phone, and computer were issued in violation of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded that each of Jumaev’s claims failed, therefore affirming judgment. View "United States v. Jumaev" on Justia Law

In early 2019, a group of individuals called the United Constitutional Patriots (UCP) began camping along a 52-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border along the eastern edge of New Mexico, near El Paso, Texas. Defendant-Appellant James Benvie met this group and subsequently began posting videos on Facebook of the group’s attempts to capture aliens they contended were illegally crossing the border. While filming, Benvie was usually accompanied by members of the UCP who were often dressed in camouflage fatigues and carried firearms. In June 2019, Benvie was indicted based on two encounters with aliens that were captured on video, specifically, impersonating a government employee, for which he was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment and a year of supervised release. On appeal, Benvie argued the district court erred by: (1) instructing the jury that “U.S. Border Patrol” and “Border Patrol” were synonymous; (2) imposing five special conditions of supervised release without adequate explanation; and (3) imposing a mandatory condition of supervised release (drug testing) in the judgment and commitment order. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for reconsideration of the conditions of supervised release and removal of the mandatory condition of drug testing. View "United States v. Benvie" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Dave Wilson pled guilty to selling 1.54 grams of methamphetamine to a police confidential informant. Along the way, however, he confessed to purchasing 113 grams of methamphetamine. Deeming that entire quantity “relevant conduct,” the district court sentenced defendant based on the 113 grams he admitted to possessing, rather than the 1.54 grams he was caught selling. Defendant appealed his sentence, claiming he personally consumed most of the 113 grams, and only sold some of it to support his habit. Defendant argued any personal-use quantity was not relevant for sentencing, and that the government failed to prove how much of the 113 grams defendant personally consumed versus how much he sold. The Tenth Circuit agreed the personal-use quantity should be excludable in this context, but defendant had the burden of coming forward with evidence to establish a personal-use quantity. No such evidence was entered into the trial court record. Nevertheless, because defendant’s burden to come forward with evidence of personal use was unclear before this opinion, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded so that Wilson could have the opportunity to put on evidence of personal use pertaining to the quantities of meth charged. Defendant’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law