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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed convictions against Whitney McBride and her company, Odyssey International Inc., for fraudulent conduct in obtaining a government contract. McBride was convicted of five offenses, including wire fraud, major fraud, and making a false declaration. She appealed the convictions, arguing that they should be vacated based on a Supreme Court case decided after her conviction, Ciminelli v. United States, which dealt with the interpretation of federal fraud statutes. She also contended that her conviction for making a false declaration should be vacated due to errors in the jury instructions.The court rejected her arguments, finding that she had waived her challenges to the convictions for conspiracy, wire fraud, and major fraud because she invited error by proffering the jury instruction she now disputed. The court also found that she waived her challenges due to her numerous procedural errors, including failing to argue for plain error on appeal and failing to meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court concluded that she had waived her arguments and affirmed her convictions. View "United States v. McBride" on Justia Law

In this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the defendant, Paul Curtis Pemberton, contested his federal conviction for a murder committed in McIntosh County, Oklahoma in 2004. The case was influenced by the Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), which confirmed that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation covered a larger area of eastern Oklahoma than previously acknowledged by state and federal governments. This ruling impacted many crimes that had been prosecuted in state courts but were actually committed within tribal jurisdictions. Pemberton, an enrolled member of the Creek Nation, argued that his crime fell within this category and should have been prosecuted in federal court under the Major Crimes Act.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, ruling that the state officers involved in Pemberton’s arrest and the subsequent collection of evidence had acted in good faith, based on the prevailing legal understanding at the time. The court noted that the officers could not have known that the Major Crimes Act barred state jurisdiction over the crime as the reservation boundaries were not clarified until the McGirt decision in 2020.The court also rejected Pemberton’s argument that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation during his sentencing. The court found that Pemberton's request to represent himself was made with the intention to delay the proceedings and was not related to the sentencing hearing. Therefore, the lower court's decision to deny his request was affirmed. View "United States v. Pemberton" on Justia Law

The case involved Garrett Joseph Hurst, who was charged with knowingly engaging in a sexual act with a minor, in violation of various sections of the United States Code. At sentencing, the district court imposed the maximum term of imprisonment of 180 months, followed by a thirteen-year term of supervised release, which was higher than the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range.Hurst appealed, arguing that the district court erred in rejecting a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement proposed by the parties, incorrectly concluded that he was ineligible for a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence, and committed plain error by failing to explain why it selected a thirteen-year term of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court held that the district court had not erred in rejecting the plea agreement, correctly concluded Hurst was ineligible for a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court also found that while the district court had erred in failing to explain its reasons for the term of supervised release, this error did not affect Hurst's substantial rights. View "United States v. Hurst" on Justia Law

This case concerned an appeal by Matthew Ware, a former correctional officer, against the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Ware was convicted by a jury of two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 46 months of imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed this sentence.Ware was a correctional officer at the Kay County Detention Center in Oklahoma. The charges against him arose from two incidents where he was found to have abused his power and caused harm to inmates. In one incident, Ware ordered the transfer of two inmates to a different level of the detention center, despite knowing that this would likely result in a fight, which it did. In another incident, Ware ordered a detainee to be handcuffed in a painful position for an extended period of time.Ware appealed his sentence, arguing that the court did not give adequate weight to his personal history and lack of criminal record. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had thoroughly weighed each of the sentencing factors and detailed its reasoning. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ware to 46 months of imprisonment, and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Ware" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the convictions of Juanita Viridiana Garcia Rodriguez, the defendant-appellant, on charges of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and interstate travel in aid of a drug-trafficking enterprise. The case stemmed from a cross-country car trip where secret compartments containing methamphetamine were found in the car driven by Tony Garcia, with Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez as a passenger.The court held that the prosecution failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez had knowledge of the methamphetamine hidden in the vehicle, which was required to prove her guilt. The court found that simply being a passenger in a car carrying drugs is insufficient to implicate the passenger in a criminal conspiracy. The court also found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the value of the methamphetamine, the appearance of the car's rear doors, and Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez's apparent nervousness, were insufficient to prove her knowledge of the drugs. The lack of evidence that Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez had ever tried to open the rear doors or that she knew about the secret compartments was particularly significant.The court concluded that any inferences about Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez's knowledge of the drugs were based on speculation, which is not sufficient to uphold a conviction. The court therefore reversed the convictions and remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In November 2018, Joseph Hoskins was stopped by a Utah state trooper, Jared Withers, because his Illinois license plate was partially obscured. The situation escalated when Trooper Withers conducted a dog sniff of the car, which led him to search the car and find a large amount of cash. Mr. Hoskins was arrested, and his DNA was collected. Mr. Hoskins sued Trooper Withers and Jess Anderson, Commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments and state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Trooper Withers had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop because Utah law requires license plates to be legible, and this applies to out-of-state plates. The court also found that the dog sniff did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop, as Mr. Hoskins was searching for his proof of insurance at the time. The court ruled that the trooper's protective measures, including pointing a gun at Mr. Hoskins, handcuffing him, and conducting a patdown, did not elevate the stop into an arrest due to Mr. Hoskins's confrontational behavior.The court further held that the dog's reaction to the car created arguable probable cause to search the car and that the discovery of a large amount of cash provided arguable probable cause to arrest Mr. Hoskins. The court found that Trooper Withers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights by pointing a gun at Mr. Hoskins in retaliation for protected speech or as excessive force. Lastly, the court found no violation of Mr. Hoskins's due process rights related to the handling of his DNA sample, as neither the Due Process Clause nor state law created a protected interest in a procedure to ensure the destruction of his DNA sample. View "Hoskins v. Withers" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Donald Alvin Tolbert, appealed against the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) opening his emails and attachments without a warrant. These emails contained child pornography and were detected by AOL's software, which reported them to the NCMEC. The NCMEC, state law enforcement in New Mexico, and the federal government subsequently conducted investigations leading to Tolbert's conviction.Tolbert argued that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the warrantless search of his emails and attachments. The court, however, ruled that even if Tolbert's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, the evidence would still be admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception allows illegally obtained evidence to be admitted if it would have inevitably been discovered by legal means.The court found that the investigations by the NCMEC and law enforcement would have proceeded in the same way, even if the emails and attachments had not been opened, based on their routine practices. They would have used information available in the CyberTips, such as IP addresses and email addresses, to link the CyberTips to Tolbert and conduct further investigations. Thus, the evidence against Tolbert would have been discovered even without opening his emails and attachments.The court, therefore, affirmed the district court's denial of Tolbert's motion to suppress and motion to reconsider. View "United States v. Tolbert" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the defendant, Jody Rufino Martinez, a member of the Syndicato de Nuevo México (“SNM”), a violent New Mexico-based prison gang, was convicted of murder under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (“VICAR”) Act, racketeering conspiracy, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The convictions were related to the 2008 murder of David Romero and the 2018 shooting of Donald Salazar. On appeal, Mr. Martinez argued that the district court erred in three ways: (1) denying his motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act, (2) admitting unduly prejudicial evidence during trial, and (3) denying his motion for a new trial after evidence emerged that he was involved in threats to kill the presiding district court judge. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Martinez's motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act, as the court's finding that Mr. Martinez did not oppose a motion to continue the trial was plausible given the record as a whole. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of SNM's violent acts, as that evidence was probative of SNM's use of violence to maintain and augment organizational respect and played a critical role in the government's case. Lastly, the court held that the district court did not err in failing to recuse itself, as the judge had no knowledge during the trial that Mr. Martinez was connected to threats against him. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned the United States District Court for the District of Utah's decision to dismiss the charge against Jonathan Alexander Morales-Lopez, who was accused of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). This statute prohibits any person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm.The district court held that the phrase "unlawful user" in the statute is unconstitutionally vague, both on its face and as applied to the facts of Morales-Lopez's case. However, the appellate court disagreed on both counts.First, the appellate court held that the district court erred in considering whether § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional on its face. The court cited longstanding precedent that a defendant whose conduct is clearly prohibited by a statute cannot pose a facial challenge to it.Second, the appellate court held that the district court erred in finding § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Morales-Lopez's conduct. The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence of a temporal nexus between Morales-Lopez's drug use and his possession of a firearm.The facts of the case are as follows: Morales-Lopez and another man were caught stealing firearms and ammunition from a store in Utah. Morales-Lopez was found with a stolen gun and methamphetamine. He also admitted to using drugs regularly in the month prior to his arrest.The appellate court concluded that the phrase "unlawful user" in § 922(g)(3) is clear in its application to Morales-Lopez's conduct and that the district court should reinstate the jury’s verdict. The case was remanded back to the district court with instructions to proceed accordingly. View "United States v. Morales-Lopez" on Justia Law

In a criminal appeal, the defendant, Kenneth Devereaux, challenged his sixty-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argued that the district court erred in treating his prior conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury as a "crime of violence" and using that conviction to increase his base offense level. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with Devereaux and the government that the district court had erred. The court concluded that the differing mental states (intentional or reckless) that could constitute a violation of the assault statute were different means of committing a single, indivisible offense, rather than elements of separate offenses. The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Mathis v. United States and its own post-Borden decision in United States v. Benally to reach this conclusion. As a result, because the least criminalized conduct the assault statute proscribes is recklessness, a conviction under the statute does not categorically involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. Therefore, the court vacated Devereaux's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Devereaux" on Justia Law