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

Abraham Gonzalez-Alarcon filed a habeas petition alleging specific facts which, if proven, would have demonstrated he was a United States citizen. He sought release from custody from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) following ICE’s reinstatement of a prior order of removal on that basis. Dismissing Gonzalez-Alarcon’s petition, the district court concluded that he was required to exhaust administrative remedies, jurisdiction was barred by the REAL ID Act, and the petition for review process was an adequate substitute for habeas such that the REAL ID Act’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions do not offend the Suspension Clause. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the exhaustion provision at issue did not govern facially valid citizenship claims; that subsection applies only to aliens. And because district courts had jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit held a court must first consider whether a petitioner was in fact an alien before requiring exhaustion. Furthermore, the Court held the REAL ID Act’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions raised serious Suspension Clause concerns in one limited context: with respect to a United States citizen subject to a reinstated order of removal for whom the deadline to seek judicial review has passed, the REAL ID Act appeared to bar federal court review. “These restrictions would effectively strip citizenship from those who do not clear various procedural hurdles. Citizenship cannot be relinquished through mere neglect. . . . and ‘[t]he very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.’” Under the Suspension Clause, the Tenth Circuit held Gonzalez-Alarcon had to be granted some path to advance his facially valid claim of citizenship in federal court. Before permitting Gonzalez-Alarcon to proceed under the Great Writ, however, he should first attempt to obtain review of his citizenship claim through the REAL ID Act. View "Gonzalez-Alarcon v. Macias" on Justia Law

Petitioner Paulo Afamasaga was a native and citizen of Samoa who entered the United States on a nonimmigrant tourist visa and remained beyond the date authorized. After he pleaded guilty to making a false statement when applying for an American passport, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b, but the immigration judge (IJ) deemed him ineligible on the ground that violating Section 1542 was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed and dismissed his appeal. “Exercising jurisdiction to review questions of law decided in BIA removal orders (see Flores-Molina v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2017)), the Tenth Circuit upheld the BIA’s determination that petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal. View "Afamasaga v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Defendant Ortiz-Lazaro pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1326(a)(1) and (b)(1), and he admitted that he violated the supervised release terms of his prior illegal reentry charge. He appealed his above-guidelines sentence for the supervised release violation as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. In looking at the detailed explanation the district court gave for its deviation from the guidelines, the Tenth Circuit concluded the sentence was reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Ortiz-Lazaro" on Justia Law

Defendant Ortiz-Lazaro pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1326(a)(1) and (b)(1), and he admitted that he violated the supervised release terms of his prior illegal reentry charge. He appealed his above-guidelines sentence for the supervised release violation as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. In looking at the detailed explanation the district court gave for its deviation from the guidelines, the Tenth Circuit concluded the sentence was reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Ortiz-Lazaro" on Justia Law

In 2014, defendant Joseph Degeare pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the sentencing court imposed a 15-year prison sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In doing so, the sentencing court treated five of Degeare’s previous Oklahoma convictions as ACCA predicates: (1) his 1990 conviction for forcible sodomy; (2) his two 1994 convictions for forcible sodomy; (3) his 1994 conviction for lewd molestation of a minor; and (4) his 2003 conviction for possession with intent to distribute. Degeare didn’t appeal. But in 2015, he sought habeas relief . After the district court denied his motion, Degeare filed an untimely notice of appeal. The Tenth Circuit dismissed, and the Supreme Court denied review. Relying on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), Degeare then sought and received authorization to file a second or successive postconviction motion for relief. In that motion, Degeare argued that the sentencing court erred in treating his previous convictions as ACCA predicates. The Tenth Circuit was faced with the issue of what offenses constitute violent felonies to make them predicate offenses for the ACCA. The Tenth Circuit hadn’t yet addressed the precise level of certainty this standard requires; whatever the term “certainty” might mean, “it doesn’t encompass the significant doubt we’re left with here. And because we can’t be ‘certain’ that the offense at issue in this appeal is ‘necessarily’ a violent felony,” the Court concluded the district court erred in treating it as one for purposes of denying defendant’s successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "United States v. Degeare" on Justia Law

Denver Detention Center (“DDC”) prisoner Craig Ralston filed a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 civil rights suit against Hosea Cannon. Ralston alleged Cannon, the official charged with “coordinating, directing[,] and monitoring the religious activities” of DDC inmates, violated his First Amendment right to free exercise by denying his request for a kosher diet. Cannon moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting his conduct was, at most, negligent and, thus, did not rise to the level of a First Amendment violation. The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. The district court concluded it was clearly established that a kosher-meal accommodation was necessary if Ralston had an honest belief the accommodation was important to his free exercise of religion. Importantly, the district court further concluded the record, read in the light most favorable to Ralston, was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find Cannon consciously or intentionally interfered with Ralston’s right to free exercise by denying the kosher-diet request. Cannon appealed. The Tenth Circuit determined that each aspect of Cannon’s appeal amounted to a challenge of the district court’s determinations of evidentiary sufficiency. Accordingly, the Court lacked jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, and dismissed Cannon’s appeal. View "Ralston v. Cannon" on Justia Law

In 2013, Defendant Joseph Pacheco was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, and Pacheco was sentenced to a within-guidelines term of 355 months in prison. On appeal, Pacheco argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence gleaned from a cell phone recovered by officers at the scene of his arrest because the device was originally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the alternative, he maintained the evidence from the cell phone should have been suppressed because the warrant ultimately authorizing officers to search the phone was authorized in Kansas but executed at a computer lab in Missouri. Further, Pacheco contended the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included charge of simple possession. As for his sentence, Pacheco argued the district court further abused its discretion in how it defined the amount and type of methamphetamine with which Pacheco was charged for sentencing purposes. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Pacheco’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Pacheco" on Justia Law

In 2013, Defendant Joseph Pacheco was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, and Pacheco was sentenced to a within-guidelines term of 355 months in prison. On appeal, Pacheco argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence gleaned from a cell phone recovered by officers at the scene of his arrest because the device was originally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the alternative, he maintained the evidence from the cell phone should have been suppressed because the warrant ultimately authorizing officers to search the phone was authorized in Kansas but executed at a computer lab in Missouri. Further, Pacheco contended the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included charge of simple possession. As for his sentence, Pacheco argued the district court further abused its discretion in how it defined the amount and type of methamphetamine with which Pacheco was charged for sentencing purposes. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Pacheco’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Pacheco" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Michael Banks of sixteen drug-related crimes, and the district court sentenced him to life in prison plus 60 months. In a direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Banks challenged his convictions. A split panel of the Tenth Circuit found and rejected Banks’ sufficiency arguments, finding he largely ignored the evidence presented at trial. Furthermore, the Court determined the evidence was sufficient to support most, if not all, of the crimes he was ultimately convicted of, “Banks appears to make the curious assertion that when a victim disputes that a defendant committed a particular offense against him or her, the evidence is necessarily insufficient to support a conviction for that offense. The Court rejected Banks’ argument the evidence at trial did not constructively amend the indictment, resulting in a fatal variance requiring reversal. Furthermore, the Court found the district court did not miscalculate the sentence Banks received. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

Richard Trent was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. His sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) to 196 months in prison. On direct appeal, Trent argued that the ACCA enhancement should not have applied to him because his past conviction under Oklahoma’s general conspiracy statute was not a serious drug offense under the ACCA. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed. Trent subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to challenge his sentence. While that motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which abrogated one of the two rationales the Tenth Circuit used to affirm Trent’s sentence. Trent argued that “Mathis” entitled him to relief. The district court denied his motion on several grounds, but granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”). After review of Trent’s appeal of his Section 2255 motion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of the motion under the “law of the case” doctrine. “Although Mathis undercut one of this court’s rationales to affirm Mr. Trent’s sentence, it did not affect our alternative rationale to affirm.” View "United States v. Trent" on Justia Law