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

After one of Defendant Chad Kaspereit’s many domestic violence incidents, a state court in Oklahoma instituted a protective order against him. While that order remained in effect, Defendant obtained two firearms from a sporting goods store. A jury convicted Defendant of one count of lying in connection with the purchase of a firearm and one count of possessing a firearm as a prohibited person. The district court imposed concurrent 120-month sentences. Defendant argued on appeal of those sentences that the Supreme Court’s holding in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), along with a lack of evidence against him, required a new trial on both counts. He also argued his sentence was unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Kaspereit" on Justia Law

Petitioner Victor Zarate-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Zarate pleaded guilty to knowing or reckless child abuse in violation of Colorado law. Several years later, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled. Zarate conceded removability and filed an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application, concluding that Zarate was ineligible for cancellation under section 1229b(b)(l)(C) because his state child abuse conviction constituted “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination and dismissed Zarate’s appeal. Challenging the Board's decisions, Zarate argued: (1) the BIA’s most recent interpretations of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) were not entitled to deference; and (2) his state conviction was not a categorical match to a “crime of child abuse” as defined by the Board. The Tenth Circuit rejected both arguments and affirmed the Board. View "Zarate-Alvarez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The government appealed a district-court order granting Defendant Gabriel Trujillo’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during an inventory search of his vehicle following his arrest for failing to pull over in response to a police command. When officers ultimately made contact with Defendant, they learned Defendant was wearing a bulletproof vest and had handguns in the car for protection because "friends of his ex-girlfriend had made threats against his life." Disbelieving Defendant’s explanation for why he had failed to pull over earlier, the arresting officer decided to arrest him. Consistent with the policy of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), the officer also determined that the car should have been impounded and towed. The officer testified he thought it would be dangerous to leave the vehicle where it was, both because its location presented a danger to other drivers, and because of the risk that someone would remove the firearms - particularly because there was a high incidence of auto burglaries and thefts in the area. When the vehicle was searched, along with the firearms, a small backpack locked with a luggage lock was in the passenger compartment, containing a white crystalline substance believed to be methamphetamine. Defendant was indicted on charges of: (1) possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine; and (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Defendant argued that the BCSO's impoundment policy was itself unreasonable because there was no community-caretaker basis for impoundment, and the officer failed to consider alternatives to towing. After review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit held that the search was justified as an exercise of law-enforcement community-caretaker functions, as described in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), and Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). The district court was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

“Talk Big” was Defendant Jalil Robinson’s handle on a dating website, and his strategy for recruiting seventeen-year-old Nikki from Colorado to work for him as a prostitute on the same site. Promising a life of luxury, Defendant convinced Nikki, who originally represented herself as eighteen-year-old Brooke, to come join him as his “business partner” in California. Little did he know he was communicating with an undercover officer posing as Nikki. Defendant’s actions led to a jury convicting him of attempted sex trafficking of a minor. Defendant claimed on appeal that the government produced insufficient evidence to find him guilty of attempted sex trafficking of a minor. The Tenth Circuit determined the trial court record established the contrary, and affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In August 2008, 20-year-old defendant Kepa Maumau participated in armed robberies of a clothing store and two restaurants. Maumau was indicted for his role in those robberies and ultimately convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit a racketeering offense, two counts of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering, one count of Hobbs Act robbery, and three counts of using a gun during a crime of violence. At the time of Maumau’s convictions, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) included a “stacking” provision that required a district court to impose consecutive sentences of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for second or subsequent convictions of the statute, even if those convictions occurred at the same time as a defendant’s first conviction under the statute. As a result of that “stacking” provision, Maumau was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 55 years. In December 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act), 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Three provisions of the First Step Act were relevant to this appeal. In October 2019, Maumau moved to reduce his sentence, arguing that that extraordinary and compelling reasons, including the First Step Act’s elimination of section 924(c)’s stacking provision, justified a reduction. The district court granted Maumau’s motion and reduced Maumau’s sentence to time served, plus a three-year term of supervised release. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting Maumau’s motion. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Maumau" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Abiel Perez-Perez pled guilty to being an alien in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the district court’s failure to advise him of two elements of that offense: (1) the alien was illegally or unlawfully present in the United States; and (2) the alien knew that he was illegally or unlawfully present. The government conceded that the omission of these elements constituted error that was now plain on appeal. The only dispute was whether Perez satisfied the third and fourth prongs of plain-error review. The Tenth Circuit concluded Perez could not satisfy the third prong because he could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. "Although Perez has a credible claim that, at the time of the offense, he did not know he was unlawfully present in the United States, he has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s error. This is because the context of Perez’s guilty plea makes clear that he pled guilty to avoid mandatory minimum sentences attached to charges the government dismissed in exchange for the guilty plea. Perez fails to show how the district court’s error impacted that choice, and he thus fails to satisfy the third plain-error prong." View "United States v. Perez-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant Malcom McGee was convicted by a jury of three criminal counts: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of PCP; (2) causing another person to possess with intent to distribute in excess of one kilogram of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of PCP; and (3) using a communication facility to commit and facilitate the commission of a felony. Because McGee had previously been convicted in California of two felony drug offenses, the district court sentenced McGee to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. Following Congress’s enactment of the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act) and the changes the First Step Act made to both section 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), McGee moved the district court pursuant to section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to reduce his sentence based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The district court denied that motion, and McGee appealed. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court misunderstood the extent of its authority at both steps one and two of section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s statutory test, it reversed the district court’s decision and remanded to the district court so that it could reconsider McGee’s motion. View "United States v. McGee" on Justia Law

Ethiopian native, petitioner Thewodros Wolie Birhanu petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed Birhanu’s appeal of the Immigration Judge's (“IJ”) decision finding him removable. The BIA and the IJ found: (1) Birhanu was removable as an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMTs”) not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct; (2) he was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal because his convictions qualified as particularly serious crimes; and (3) he was not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Tenth Circuit dismissed Birhanu's claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as unexhausted, and denied the balance of his petition for review on the merits. View "Birhanu v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Justin Foust appealed his conviction on six counts of wire fraud, and one count each of aggravated identity theft and money laundering. He was sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. Foust’s company, Platinum Express, LLC, submitted false and fraudulent invoices to its customer, Chesapeake Energy Corporation (“Chesapeake”). Chesapeake identified more than $4.5 million that it had paid out on these invoices. Foust did not deny that the invoices were improper and that Platinum Express had not performed the work. But he denied that he had forged the signatures and employee identification numbers of Chesapeake employees. A handwriting expert testified otherwise regarding invoices associated with Chesapeake employee Bobby Gene Putman. The jury convicted Foust on the wire-fraud and aggravated-identity-theft counts associated with these invoices. On appeal, Foust argued the district court abused its discretion by allowing the handwriting expert to testify at trial. He contended: (1) the government did not adequately show that the expert’s methodology was reliable; and (2) the handwriting expert used unreliable data in reaching his opinion. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment. View "United States v. Foust" on Justia Law

Defendant Aaron Mercado-Gracia challenged his three convictions for drug trafficking, conspiring to traffic drugs, and using a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. In upholding his convictions, the Tenth Circuit found the district court did not err in denying Mercado-Gracia’s motion to suppress evidence discovered as the result of a traffic stop. The traffic stop evolved into a consensual encounter during which the police officer developed reasonable suspicion to believe Mercado-Gracia was involved in drug trafficking. That reasonable suspicion justified a brief investigative detention, during which the officer deployed his drug-sniffing dog, which alerted, leading to the discovery of a gun and two kilograms of heroin in the car Mercado-Gracia was driving. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mercado-Gracia’s request to play during voir dire a video to educate prospective jurors on implicit bias. Thus, finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Mercado-Gracia's convictions. View "United States v. Mercado-Gracia" on Justia Law