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

Defendant-appellant Robert Allen appealed his conviction for depredation of government property. arguing his conviction violated both the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and separation of powers principles. Allen also appealed the district court’s restitution order of $20,300, claiming the order included restitution for uncharged conduct, and that the district court erred in applying the procedural framework of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) by placing the burden on him to disprove the amount of loss contained in the presentence report and by ordering a restitution amount unsupported by evidence. After the parties completed briefing on this case, the government filed a notice of concession, acknowledging that the restitution order was erroneous and suggesting remand for resentencing on restitution. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Allen’s conviction, vacated the district court’s restitution order, and remanded the case to the district court to recalculate restitution. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

In March 2018, Francisco Ybarra Cruz, a former confidential informant in federal drug investigations, was stopped for a New Mexico traffic violation. After obtaining consent to search, the officer found more than ten pounds of methamphetamine in Ybarra Cruz’s truck. After being indicted, Ybarra Cruz moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence and his Mirandized statements and admissions. The district court denied this motion, and a jury later convicted him for possessing the methamphetamine with an intent to distribute it. On appeal, Ybarra Cruz argued the district court: (1) erred by not granting his motion to suppress, on grounds that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop; (2) erred by not acquitting him based on his public-authority defense (that he reasonably believed he was acting with government authority in transporting the methamphetamine); (3) abused its discretion by not granting him a new trial on grounds that the jury might not have understood that crediting his public-authority defense would require acquittal on both counts; and (4) abused its discretion by not sua sponte instructing on the affirmative defense of duress. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit rejected each of these arguments and affirmed. View "United States v. Ybarra Cruz" on Justia Law

Melvin Roshard Alfred was convicted by jury of coercion and enticement (Count 1) and facilitating prostitution (Count 2). Using a social media website, “Tagged,” Alfred attempted to convince a person he believed to be a nineteen-year-old woman living in Colorado to engage in prostitution. In fact, Alfred was communicating with FBI agents. Before trial, the government indicated it intended to admit eight “memes”: Alfred had posted the memes on Tagged in or before 2015, three years prior to Alfred’s contact with the FBI-run profile. The memes contained laudatory references to pimping and pimping culture and also contained graphic depictions suggesting dire consequences of engaging in prostitution without a pimp. The district court concluded the memes were admissible as intrinsic evidence of the crimes charged and that the probative value of six of the eight memes was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The district court excluded the other two memes under Rule 403. On appeal, Alfred argued the district court abused its discretion in finding the memes were intrinsic evidence of the charged counts and in finding the probative value of the six memes admitted was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Finding no such abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Alfred" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Johnny Delano was convicted in 1993 of armed bank robbery, sentenced to 262 months in prison, and ordered to pay $11,558 in restitution. The restitution was ordered pursuant to the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”). After Delano was released from prison, he began serving a five-year term of supervised release. Delano’s supervised release was revoked in 2017 and he was sentenced to serve an additional twenty-seven months’ incarceration. He was also ordered to pay the unpaid balance of the restitution imposed in 1993. Delano challenged the restitution portion of his current sentence, arguing his obligation to pay restitution under the VWPA expired twenty years after his original sentence was imposed and the plain language of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”) precluded the district court from reviving or reimposing restitution. The Tenth Circuit concluded, in light of the plain language of the MVRA, Congress clearly stated that the MVRA had only prospective application. The district court’s error was therefore plain, and the Court reversed the part of Delano’s sentence ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $5,159.59. View "United States v. Delano" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellants Guillermo Martinez-Torres and Jesus Gomez-Arzate entered conditional pleas of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, reserving a right to appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress physical evidence and statements made during a traffic stop. Each was sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, they contend that their initial traffic stop was invalid, the resulting detention was unlawfully extended and without valid consent, and the deputies’ search of their car exceeded the scope of consent. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "United States v. Gomez-Arzate" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Tignor pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. At the time he pled guilty, Tenth Circuit case law held a person would incur guilt by knowingly possessing a firearm after obtaining a felony conviction. Under this law, defendants would remain guilty even if they had not known that their prior convictions involved felonies. Soon after the guilty plea, the case law changed when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), which held the government needed to prove that the defendant knew his status prohibited possession of a firearm. Given that holding, in this case, the government needed t prove Tignor had known his prior conviction was punishable by more than a year in prison. Invoking Rehaif, Tignor asked the Tenth Circuit to vacate his guilty plea because he wasn’t told about the newly recognized element. For this issue, the parties agreed that the plain-error standard applied. Under this standard, the Tenth Circuit considered whether Tignor showed a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty if he’d known that the government needed to prove knowledge of his prohibited status. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Tignor lacked a plausible defense, and affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Tignor" on Justia Law

Deivy Romero-Lopez was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after being removed. The crime of illegal reentry begins when a noncitizen returns after removal and continues until he or she is “found” in the United States. The issue this case presented was not that Romero-Lopez was found in the U.S. after removal, but when he was found. The timing matters for his sentence because the Sentencing Commission dramatically increased the guideline ranges for individuals convicted of illegal reentry. The "starting point" for a sentence was the applicable starting guideline range. To determine that range, the district court needed to decide which annual version of the guidelines to use because the Sentencing commission changed the applicable provision in November 2016; the guideline ranges for illegal reentry sharply increased in November 2016. The new version of the guidelines would have applied only if Romero-Lopez's offense ended on or after the date of the change. Focusing on this increase, the parties disagreed over whether Romero-Lopez had been “found” before the change went into effect. The district court concluded that he had been found after the change, triggering the increased guideline range. Finding no reversible error in that conclusion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Romero-Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant Donovan Silva contended the district court erred in arriving at his sentence for possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon under the Sentencing Guidelines by concluding a prior assault conviction was a crime of violence. He argued the assault conviction was too old to have independently received criminal-history points under USSG sections 4A1.1 and 4A1.2 n.3(a). To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed: the Guidelines did not permit a section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement. The error met all four prongs of the plain-error analysis. Therefore, the Court reversed sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

Defendant Jessica Clark pleaded guilty to one count of child neglect in Indian Country. At sentencing, the district court concluded there were no sufficiently analogous Guidelines provision that applied to Clark's conviction, and consequently, it had to sentence her without reference to a specific Guidelines provision or advisory sentencing range. Clark received an 84-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Clark appealed, arguing the district court erred: (1) by not finding U.S.S.G. 2A2.3, the Sentencing Guidelines provision applicable to “Assault” offenses, was sufficiently analogous to her offense of conviction and therefore should have, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2X5.1, been applied by the district court to determine both an offense level and in turn an advisory Guidelines sentencing range; and (2) the district court plainly erred by failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence it imposed. The Tenth Circuit rejected Clark's first argument, but agreed with the second: there was no sufficiently analogous Guidelines provision, but an explanation of the reasons for the sentence ultimately imposed was warranted. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Floyd Henry, Jr. was convicted in the District of Minnesota, and after serving a term of imprisonment, absconded from the conditions of his supervised release. Henry's case was transferred to Colorado, and after a hearing for violations of supervision, the Colorado district court revoked his supervised release, sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment and a 120-month term of supervised release, and reimposed the special conditions initially imposed by the Minnesota court. The Colorado court indicated it could not change the special conditions another judge had imposed. Henry appealed the reimposition of the special conditions, arguing the district court erred by not making individualized assessments for them. The Tenth Circuit determined Henry failed to show this potential error justified vacating these special conditions. Thus, judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law