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

Defendant Demonte Embry was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and sentenced to seventy-seven months incarceration. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, he argued that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in denying Defendant's discovery request for potentially exculpatory and impeaching FBI information. Furthermore, Defendant argued the district court erred in preventing him from impeaching his own witness on direct examination with extrinsic evidence of the witness's efforts to discredit a government witness in an unrelated police corruption case. Finding no error in either ruling, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions.

Defendant Jordan Halliday challenged his sentence for criminal contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury. The sentencing guideline provision for "contempt" requires the district court to "apply the most analogous offense guideline." The district court in this case applied the guideline for "obstruction of justice." Defendant argued the district court should have applied the provision for "failure to appear as a material witness." He also challenged his sentences as substantively unreasonable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly considered the analogous sentence Defendant would receive, and determined that the sentence was not unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court could not conclude that Defendant's sentence was manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Petitioners Qi Hui Chen and his son, Yiyao Li Chen, natives and citizens of China, sought to overturn Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decisions affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision to deny their requests for asylum and restriction on removal. Qi Hui arrived in the United States in January 1997. He submitted his asylum application in September 2006. Yiyao Li came to the United States in October 2004. He submitted his asylum application in December 2007. Petitioners sought asylum and restriction on removal based on their political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Their applications were based on his opposition to the family-planning policy in China. Qi Hui testified that, at the end of 2006, he and Yiyao Li sent a letter to their church in China suggesting that the church should not endorse the birth-control policy anymore. Qi Hui testified that a few weeks after they sent the letter, his wife received a notice instructing the Chens to surrender. Although the Chens each filed their own asylum applications, they moved to consolidate their removal proceedings. The IJ held one hearing on both applications and issued one decision denying all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. Although the Tenth Circuit agreed that the better practice would have been for the Chens to file separate petitions for review from the separate BIA decisions, under the circumstances in this case, it was sufficient to file a single petition for review and it was not in the interests of judicial economy to bifurcate the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioners' motion to bifurcate.

Defendant-Appellant Carrillo-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the offense of illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. At sentencing, he moved for a downward variance from the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) range based on the staleness of his prior felony. The district court declined to grant it, instead sentencing Defendant at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Defendant's request for a downward variance, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Zaricor-Ritchie appealed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and Supplement Security Income. Plaintiff claimed she was disabled by bipolar disorder and depression. After administrative denials of her claims for benefits, she had two hearings before an ALJ, who concluded she was not disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process. Plaintiff raised three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical source evidence; (2) the ALJ erred in his credibility assessment; and (3) the ALJ failed to perform a proper analysis in concluding that she could return to her past relevant work as a dishwasher. Taking each of Plaintiff's arguments in turn, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ's analysis was sufficient to support its decision. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits.

Defendant Fernando Estrella pled guilty to one count of possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, and one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment. This sentence was below the statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment and at the low end of the 168- to 120-month advisory guideline range determined by the district court. In his plea agreement, Defendant waived his right to collaterally attack his plea, sentence or any imposed restitution. Despite the waiver, Defendant filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the sentence. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver. On appeal, Defendant conceded that his appeal was within the scope of the waiver, and that he knowingly waived his appellate rights. He contended, however, that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" to enforce the waiver because the sentence was excessive. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's argument was "simply a claim of sentencing error" which did not establish that enforcement of the waiver would be unlawful. Accordingly, the Court granted the government's motion and dismissed the appeal.

Applicant prisoner Roscoe Ford sought a certificate of appealability from the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. An information filed in Colorado state court in 1997 charged Applicant with aggravated robbery and alleged that he was an habitual criminal. Applicant's first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on a verdict. At his second trial the getaway driver was unavailable and did not testify. The jury convicted Applicant of aggravated robbery and the court adjudicated him to be an habitual criminal under Colorado law. He was sentenced to life in prison. Applicant raised eleven claims in his motion for post-conviction relief, among them, he questioned the sufficiency of the evidence used against him, errors in the trial process, a general violation of his constitutional rights and ineffective appellate counsel. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no reasonable jurist could dispute the district court's decisions. The Court denied Applicant's application and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Autumn Seals sought reversal of his conviction on the grounds that he was denied a speedy trial. In this appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in granting a continuance without counting the elapsed time against the Speedy Trial Act clock. He argued that a new charge against him and the introduction of an alibi witness didn’t materially change the complexion of the case and didn’t justify a long a delay. And because the district court’s findings were insufficient to trigger an "ends-of-justice" delay, the Speedy Trial clock continued to run and expired long before his eventual trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant did not adequately preserve this issue for appeal. As such, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Petitioner Jose Luis Magallon-Almanza, a native of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal. In the proceedings before the IJ, Petitioner conceded he was removable, but sought a cancellation of removal. The IJ found Petitioner did not meet either of these requirements and therefore denied relief and ordered him removed to Mexico. The BIA examined the evidence of hardship to Petitioner’s United States citizen children and agreed with the IJ that Petitioner did not establish they would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Mexico. The BIA also summarily rejected Petitioner’s argument that the IJ applied the wrong legal standards in analyzing his evidence of hardship. The BIA affirmed the IJ's order of removal. The Tenth Circuit's review of the IJ's decision showed no support for Petitioner's arguments raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed the IJ's and BIA's decisions.

Petitioner Jean Paul Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. Petitioner entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa and overstayed his visit. Nearly twenty years later, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with remaining in this country without authorization. Petitioner conceded he was removable, but he sought several forms of relief, including adjustment of status. At a hearing, Petitioner testified that he came to this country when he was nine years old and had since been convicted of various crimes as a juvenile and adult, but was attempting to turn his life around. Due to his criminal convictions, however, in particular, two petty theft offenses and two controlled substance violations, the IJ concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. Alternatively, the IJ ruled that even if Petitioner was eligible for adjustment of status, he did not warrant such discretionary relief because his extensive criminal record outweighed the positive attributes in his case, and there was no evidence of rehabilitation. The IJ thus ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. The BIA affirmed. Finding that Petitioner characterized his argument "as one based on due process, but he cannot transform his challenge to the BIA’s denial of discretionary relief into a claim of constitutional magnitude for the simple reason that he had no due process interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction for further review and dismissed the case.