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

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

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that, regardless of whether the district court was correct in concluding that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement precluded suppression of the fruit of the subsequent search. In this case, the affidavit supporting the warrant had enough indicia of reliability to support the detective's good faith reliance on the warrant. View "United States v. Knox" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for forcibly opposing a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(b), and three lesser crimes. The court held that a district court did not commit clear and obvious error by failing to instruct a jury that assault was an element of a section 111(a)(1) conviction; the invited error doctrine applied in cases such as this one, where the defendant requested the jury instruction he later challenged on appeal; and thus defendant's challenge to the section 111 jury instruction was precluded by the invited error doctrine. The court also held that the district court provided an adequate explanation of "generalized reasons" sufficient to enable the court to conduct a proper review and the imposition of the mental health treatment reasonably related to at least one of the statutory factors: defendant's history and characteristics. View "United States v. Jereb" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. The court held that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant established a minimally sufficient nexus between the place to be searched and the suspected criminal activity to make the officers' reliance on the warrant reasonable. View "United States v. Chambers" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. The court held that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant established a minimally sufficient nexus between the place to be searched and the suspected criminal activity to make the officers' reliance on the warrant reasonable. View "United States v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Steven Ford was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for various firearms-possession charges, followed by three years of supervised release. Because of a sex-offense conviction nineteen years earlier, the district court placed sex-offense-specific conditions on Ford’s term of supervised release. Specifically, the court required Ford to undergo a sex-offender assessment, and if recommended by the assessment, to submit to treatment which could include polygraph questioning about his sexual past. Ford contended on appeal that the district court abused its discretion because the sex-offender conditions are not reasonably related to the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3583. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, notwithstanding Ford’s long custodial sentence and new life sentence for a different crime, Ford’s challenge was ripe for review. Furthermore, the Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Ford to undergo a sex-offender risk assessment as a condition of supervised release. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

Kay Tee appealed his conviction on three federal criminal counts: (1) attempted coercion and enticement to travel to engage in prostitution; (2) interstate transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises; and (3) money laundering. These counts grew out of Tee’s discussions with a government informant (known as “Lucy”). The government’s trial theory was that Tee had tried to help Lucy, thinking that she wanted to buy a massage parlor and operate it as a prostitution business. Tee denied guilt and pressed an affirmative defense of entrapment. The jury rejected the entrapment defense and found guilt on the three counts. Tee appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing racial discrimination during voir dire, and trial court errors in admitting certain evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Tee’s convictions. View "United States v. Tee" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jeffrey Stevens was indicted on 10 counts of interstate communication with intent to injure for posting 10 messages on the Tulsa Police Department’s (“TPD”) online “Citizen Complaint” form. The messages discussed committing violence against specific members of the TPD or TPD officers generally. Stevens moved to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds, arguing his messages were not true threats. The district court denied the motion because a reasonable jury could construe the messages to be true threats. Stevens pled guilty to five counts conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The Tenth Circuit determined the district court properly denied Stevens’s motion: “a reasonable jury could understand his messages to be true threats.” View "United States v. Stevens" on Justia Law