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

Defendant Manuel Avitia-Guillen, a citizen of Mexico, lawfully entered the United States in 1955. He obtained permanent resident status in 1988 but was deported in June 1996 after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") discovered Defendant in Denver, Colorado, in May 2011. A grand jury indicted Defendant with one count of being found in the United States. At trial, the Government called a fingerprint examiner with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to testify that Defendant's fingerprints matched those on his 1996 deportation records. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, but the district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court sentenced Defendant to the low end of the guideline range, 41 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued the district court failed to make adequate findings of reliability with respect to the CBI expert's testimony. "The issue Defendant raises on appeal is extremely narrow[:] . . . the district court erred 'by failing to create an adequate record demonstrating that it satisfied its gatekeeping obligations.'" Defendant did not object to the expert's methodology at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not plainly err in its implicit determination that the CBI expert's testimony was based on "reliable principles and methods" that were "reliably applied." View "United States v. Avitia-Guillen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Zinna appealed the district court's attorneys' fee award following a successful 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights suit against county official Defendant-Appellee James Congrove. On its consideration of the jury verdict favoring Plaintiff, the district court determined the damage award was nominal and the victory merely technical. It proceeded to award Plaintiff $8,000 in attorneys' fees under section 1988 ($1,000 for each day of an eight-day trial). In light of the Tenth Circuit's jurisprudence applying "Farrar v. Hobby," (506 U.S. 103, 116-22(1992)(O'Connor, J., concurring)), the Court concluded that the district court's award was arbitrary, reversed, and remanded. View "Zinna v. Congrove" on Justia Law

Upon entering a plea agreement with the government, Defendant Marcus Oakes pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to one count of distributing cocaine base. At the sentencing hearing, the government breached its promise in the plea agreement not to oppose Defendant's request that his sentence be concurrent with a prior federal sentence, and the district court sentenced him to 37 months' imprisonment to run consecutively to the other sentence. When the breach was brought to the court's attention a few minutes later, the court struck from the record the improper part of the government's argument but resentenced Defendant to the same consecutive sentence. On appeal Defendant contended that the breach required that his sentence be vacated and resentencing be set before a different judge. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court: "Defendant does not seek, and we would not order, that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. Therefore, the sole remedy for the government's breach is resentencing. Ordinarily, we would order resentencing before another judge. But a defendant can choose to be resentenced before the same judge, that choice can properly be made by defense counsel, and defense counsel made that choice below. Hence, there is no further remedy available for Defendant on direct appeal." View "United States v. Oakes" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Dennis Dean Neff entered a conditional guilty plea on one count of traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to sixty months' incarceration. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Defendant reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the state trooper's initial stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional because the trooper lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity under "Terry v. Ohio," (392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the facts known to the trooper at the time of the initial stop did not rise to the level of reasonable, articulable suspicion by providing a particularized and objective basis for wrongdoing. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress and remanded the case with directions to vacate Defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Neff" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant John Lloyd Whitley was pulled over in his truck based on information that he was a felon in possession of a firearm. During the stop, officers observed two firearms in plain view and found another firearm and ammunition in their subsequent search of the vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop was not justified. After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Finding that the police had a reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Whitley" on Justia Law

Defendant David Martinez-Zamaripa pled guilty to being an alien present in the United States after deportation. The district court imposed a sentence of 54 months based on a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for prior conviction of a crime of violence, citing Defendant's Oklahoma conviction for indecent proposal to a child in 1995. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that his state conviction should not have been considered a crime of violence under the Guideline. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's Oklahoma conviction was indeed a crime of violence, and affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Martinez-Zamaripa" on Justia Law

The district court overturned an employee benefit plan's denial of a former employee's claim for permanent and total disability life insurance benefits. On appeal, Defendant Owens-Illinois Hourly Employees Welfare Benefit Plan contended the district court erred in rejecting Defendant’s argument that the employee was not eligible for this benefit under the Plan’s life insurance coverage provisions because his PTD life insurance claim was not filed until after he retired. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court should have entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the administrative record rather than remanding for further administrative proceedings. The Tenth Circuit therefore remanded the case with directions for the district court to modify its order and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "Spradley v. Owens-Illinois Hourly Employees Welfare Benefit Plan" on Justia Law

Defendant Deshane Gantt pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence for which he was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. He appealed the sentence, arguing that it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence, finding the sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court adequately explained why it varied from the guideline sentence, and it was substantively reasonable because the length of the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Gantt" on Justia Law

Defendant Cody M. Justice pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to possession of a firearm by a felon. In calculating Defendant's offense level under the sentencing guidelines, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(4) for possession of a weapon with an obliterated serial number and another four-level enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. It then imposed a sentence of 108 months' imprisonment. On appeal Defendant contended that the district court improperly applied the 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancement because the serial number to his gun was restored with chemicals and therefore was not obliterated; that the evidence was insufficient to support the 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement; and that the court applied the 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement without making the factual finding that a firearm facilitated his drug possession. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that "obliterate" in the context of 2K2.1(b)(4) means "to make indecipherable or imperceptible, not necessarily irretrievable;" that the evidence sufficed to show that a firearm facilitated Defendant's possession of drugs by emboldening him; and that the district court's failure to make a specific facilitation finding was not plain error. View "United States v. Justice" on Justia Law

Defendant Antonio de los Santos pled guilty to the offense of being a felon in possession of firearms. Before sentencing, the Government filed notice of its intent to seek an enhanced sentence under the ACCA based on Defendant's four prior convictions for serious drug offenses. These included one conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on or about November 10, 1992, and three convictions for distribution of cocaine occurring on or about November 2, 1992, November 16, 1992, and November 24, 1992. Defendant objected, arguing that each of these convictions arose from a single criminal episode and thus should be treated as a single conviction for purposes of section 924(e)(1). The district court orally overruled Defendant's objection to the Government's ACCA notice and sentenced him accordingly. The district court concluded the offenses involved were sufficiently separate and distinct. Specifically, the district court stated Defendant had a meaningful opportunity to cease his criminal conduct, but did not do so. On appeal, Defendant did not challenge whether his convictions qualify as "serious" drug offenses under the ACCA. Rather, he challenged only whether the four convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding no single criminal episode existed in this case because each violation occurred at distinct, different times. View "United States v. de los Santos" on Justia Law