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

Mark Lantis set off on a day hike in Yellowstone National Park to search for buried treasure. He would get lost in the wilderness and was rescued by helicopter late the next day. Based on these events, a magistrate judge found Lantis guilty of a misdemeanor: reckless disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. 2.34(a)(4). Lantis appealed, arguing that the magistrate judge applied an objective standard for reckless conduct, without also assuring that the subjective component of recklessness was met. To this, the Tenth Circuit disagreed: "the magistrate judge did not apply only an objective standard; he simply relied on circumstantial evidence of Lantis’s state of mind and the obviousness of the risk to conclude that Lantis behaved recklessly by consciously disregarding a risk that he was aware of. Accordingly, we affirm." View "United States v. Lantis" on Justia Law

This case arose from the fatal shooting of Logan Simpson by Jon Little, a patrol officer for the City of Bixby, Oklahoma. Tiffany Simpson, Logan Simpson’s mother and personal representative of his estate, sued Officer Little in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force in violation of Simpson’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Officer Little moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the motion. Officer Little appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding: (1) the Court lacked interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s conclusion that a jury could find a constitutional violation because Officer Little challenged the factual basis for the court’s determination; (2) the Court also lacked jurisdiction to consider some of Officer Little’s arguments regarding clearly established law; and (3) the Court found his remaining arguments lack merit. View "Simpson v. Little, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from the tragic death of Dillon Taylor, who was shot and killed by Salt Lake City Police Officer Bron Cruz. Officer Cruz and two fellow officers were following up on a 9-1-1 call reporting that a man had flashed a gun. The caller described the man and noted that he was accompanied by another male whom the caller also described. The officers attempted to stop Taylor and two male companions because two of the three men matched the caller’s descriptions. While Taylor’s companions immediately complied with the responding officers’ commands to stop and show their hands, Taylor did not. Instead, he made a 180-turn and walked away. Firearms in hand, but not pointed at Taylor, Officer Cruz and another responding officer followed Taylor. At some point, Taylor turned to face Officer Cruz, continuing to walk backwards with his hands in his waistband, "appeared to be digging there, as if Mr. Taylor was manipulating something." Then, without any verbal warning, Taylor quickly lifted his shirt with his left hand - exposing his lower torso -and virtually simultaneously withdrew his right hand from his waistband. The motion took less than one second and was consistent with the drawing of a gun. Reacting to Taylor’s rapid movement, Officer Cruz shot Taylor twice—firing in quick succession. Taylor died at the scene. When he was searched, Taylor was unarmed; in particular, he did not have a gun. Taylor’s estate and family members (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting claims against Salt Lake City and Officer Cruz (and others). The question this appeal presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether Officer Cruz’s decision to shoot Taylor was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. Concluding that it was, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Estate of Dillon Taylor, et al. v. Salt Lake City, et al." on Justia Law

Jenifer Miladis Alvarado-Diaz and Magdaly Suleydy Perez-Velasquez appealed the district court’s affirmance of their convictions for entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(a)(1). Alvarado and Perez crossed the U.S.-Mexico border into New Mexico by walking around a fence, miles away from the nearest designated port of entry. Alvarado was stopped by a border patrol agent after she made it about 180 yards past the border, and a border patrol agent saw Perez just as she walked into the country. Each was detained. Alvarado and Perez admitted to the agents that they were nationals of El Salvador and Guatemala, respectively, and had no authorization to enter the country. They contended “enter” was a term of art that required more than a physical intrusion; it also required “freedom from official restraint” and “inspection or intentional evasion of inspection.” The district court affirmed the convictions because, even assuming freedom from official restraint was required for an “entry,” the Defendants were not under official restraint. The defendants argued they were under official restraint because they had been continuously surveilled, but the court noted that continuous surveillance alone did not equate to restraint. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendants reiterated arguments made at the district court. The Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Perez-Velasquez" on Justia Law

The estate of a mentally ill and intellectually disabled prisoner who committed suicide while in Utah Department of Corrections (“UDC”) custody appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against the UDC. Brock Tucker was seventeen when he was imprisoned at the Central Utah Correctional Facility (“CUCF”). At CUCF, Tucker endured long periods of punitive isolation. CUCF officials rarely let him out of his cell, and he was often denied recreation, exercise equipment, media, commissary, visitation, and library privileges. Tucker hanged himself approximately two years after his arrival at CUCF. Plaintiff-appellant Janet Crane was Tucker’s grandmother and the administrator of his estate. She sued on his estate’s behalf: (1) making Eighth Amendment claims against four prison officials (the “CUCF Defendants”); (2) making statutory claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act against UDC; and (3) making a claim under the Unnecessary Rigor Clause of the Utah Constitution against both the CUCF Defendants and UDC. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion, holding the CUCF Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal constitutional claims and the federal statutory claims did not survive Tucker’s death. As a result, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim. Finding no reversible error in the district court's dismissal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Crane v. Utah Department of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick LaJuan Jones, Jr. contended the Sentencing Commission did not intend to include state convictions based on a controlled substance not identified in the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to serve as predicate offenses when determining a defendant’s base-offense level under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(a)(4). Notwithstanding Application Note 1 of section 2K2.1(a)(4) directing to section 4B1.2(b), where the Guidelines defined “controlled substance offense,” Defendant claimed the Sentencing Commission intended to only include those controlled substances identified in the CSA. Based on a plain reading of section 4B1.2(b), the district court determined that the Sentencing Commission did not limit “controlled substance” to mean only substances identified in the CSA. Finding no error in that interpretation, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant Malachi Bruley appealed the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 48 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. In 2014, Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, which carried a statutory maximum sentence of 60 months and a lifetime of supervised release. He also pleaded guilty to one count of being a drug user in possession of a firearm, which was punishable by up to 120 months' imprisonment and three years of supervise release. The district court sentenced Defendant to 42 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. In addition, the district court imposed three years of supervised release on each count, to run concurrently. Since his release from prison, Defendant’s supervised release has been revoked twice. On the first revocation, the district court sentenced Defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment on both counts, to run concurrently. The district court also imposed 18 months of supervised release on both counts, to run concurrently. On the second revocation, the one at issue on appeal here, the district court sentenced Defendant to 48 months’ imprisonment: 24 months on each count, to run consecutively. The district court also imposed two years of supervised release but did not specify to which count it applied. Prior to the revocation proceedings, the U.S. Probation Office proposed a set of special conditions for the court to impose as part of Defendant’s supervised release. These included a search condition and substance abuse treatment condition - both of which were imposed during Defendant’s two previous terms of supervised release. At the hearing, the district court announced two of the four special conditions recommended by the Probation Office, but did not announce the search condition or substance abuse treatment condition. Following the hearing, the district court issued a written judgment which imposed the unannounced search condition and substance abuse treatment condition. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "United States v. Bruley" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Adam Hemmelgarn moved for compassionate release, based on an outbreak of COVID-19 at FCI Lompoc. The district court denied his motion, as well as his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding Hemmelgarn had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons in support of a sentence reduction because of his health conditions or the risk of exposure to COVID-19. View "United States v. Hemmelgarn" on Justia Law

In 1984, petitioner-appellant Bruce Wimberly pled guilty to first-degree sexual assault. The Colorado trial court accepted his plea and considered the sentencing options: (1) determinate prison term up to 24 years; or (2) an indeterminate term of confinement lasting anywhere from one day to life. The court chose the second option, made additional findings required by the Colorado Sex Offenders Act of 1968, and imposed an indeterminate term of confinement ranging from one day to life imprisonment. More than 24 years passed. Now Wimberly argued the Constitution required his release because he didn’t receive a new hearing at the end of the 24-year determinate term (that the trial court chose not to impose). Without a new hearing, Wimberly claimed his continued confinement violated his rights to equal protection and due process. The federal district court rejected Wimberly’s arguments, and so did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. “The state trial court provided adequate procedural safeguards when imposing the indeterminate term of confinement, and that term could last anywhere from a single day to the rest of Mr. Wimberly’s lifetime. The State thus had no constitutional duty to provide a new round of procedural safeguards 24 years into Mr. Wimberly’s indeterminate term.” View "Wimberly v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Aaron Kendall was arrested after a traffic stop; officers decided to impound his vehicle. Prior to impoundment, the officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle, locating methamphetamine and heroin underneath the center console and a stolen handgun tucked within a loose panel below the glove compartment. The government charged Kendall with drug and gun crimes, and Kendall moved to suppress the physical evidence found in the vehicle, arguing that it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Kendall’s motion to suppress, and Kendall appealed that decision. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Kendall’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Kendall" on Justia Law