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

On December 21, 2022, Oklahoma City Police officers received a tip that Karen Gonzalez, who had an outstanding arrest warrant, was at a Days Inn. Officers surveilled the area and followed a car they believed she entered to a gas station. They confirmed her identity and arrested her. Jonas Tyler, who was near the car, was detained, handcuffed, and placed in a police car. Despite his compliance and lack of suspicion, officers detained him further while waiting for a K-9 unit, which eventually led to the discovery of a firearm and drugs in his car.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Mr. Tyler's motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, ruling that his continued detention was reasonable. Mr. Tyler then entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Mr. Tyler's continued detention after the arrest of Ms. Gonzalez was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that the government did not have a sufficient justification for detaining Mr. Tyler beyond the initial arrest of Ms. Gonzalez, as there was no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or dangerousness on his part. Consequently, the court vacated Mr. Tyler's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion. View "United States v. Tyler" on Justia Law

The case involves Plaintiff Craig Gabaldon, who was stopped by New Mexico State Police Officer Kevin Smith for multiple traffic violations, including improper merging, speeding, and failing to use a turn signal. During the stop, Officer Smith detected signs of intoxication and arrested Gabaldon after a struggle, during which a loaded gun was found on Gabaldon. Officer Kurtis Ward assisted in the arrest. Gabaldon filed a civil action alleging constitutional violations and state-law claims, asserting that the stop was motivated by his affiliation with the Bandidos Motorcycle Club.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Defendants' motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence, as Gabaldon had returned his Bandidos gear to the club, which likely destroyed it. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Gabaldon's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, citing qualified immunity and finding reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and probable cause for the arrest. Gabaldon's affidavit, which contradicted his deposition testimony, was struck down as a sham affidavit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the spoliation motion or in striking Gabaldon's affidavit. The appellate court agreed that the affidavit was an attempt to create a sham fact issue, as it contradicted Gabaldon's earlier deposition testimony without new evidence. The court also upheld the summary judgment, finding that Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to stop Gabaldon based on observed traffic violations. The appellate court concluded that the district court's rulings were correct and affirmed the judgment. View "Gabaldon v. New Mexico State Police" on Justia Law

The case involves Kirk Ardell Sjodin Jr., who was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Sjodin had a prior felony conviction in California for assault with a firearm and unlawful firearm possession, for which he served over a year in prison. In 2022, he was found in possession of a firearm in Utah, leading to the federal charge. Sjodin argued that he believed his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms, had been restored, based on his interactions with the legal system in Oklahoma.The United States District Court for the District of Utah found Sjodin guilty. The court noted that Sjodin did not present any evidence at trial to support his claim that he believed his rights had been restored. The court also found that the documents from his Oklahoma case did not indicate any restoration of his civil rights or expungement of his felony conviction. Consequently, the court concluded that the government had met its burden of proving that Sjodin knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Sjodin’s conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Sjodin knew of his prohibited status. The court noted that Sjodin’s stipulations and the records of his prior felony conviction were sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court found that the district court erred in classifying Sjodin’s California assault conviction as a crime of violence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, as the California statute allows for convictions with a mens rea less than recklessness. The court remanded the case for resentencing without the crime of violence enhancement. View "United States v. Sjodin" on Justia Law

The defendant, a citizen of El Salvador, was apprehended in New Mexico in May 2023 and entered a blind plea to reentry of a removed alien subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (b)(2). His criminal history includes multiple convictions for violent crimes, including manslaughter and battery with intent to commit a crime. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated his advisory guidelines range as 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, but the district court varied upward and sentenced him to 60 months.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held a sentencing hearing where both the Government and the defendant requested a within-guidelines sentence. However, the court expressed concern about the defendant's violent criminal history and recent reentry into the United States. The court adopted the PSR's undisputed factual recitations and considered the defendant's arguments regarding his past alcohol and drug consumption, rehabilitation, and medical needs. Ultimately, the court found that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not commit procedural error by relying on the PSR's undisputed facts and that the 60-month sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant's violent criminal history and the need to protect the public. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward from the guidelines range, as the defendant's criminal history and the seriousness of his reentry offense justified the variance. View "United States v. Cortez" on Justia Law

The case involves an ancillary proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Jesse Dunn filed a third-party petition claiming ownership of a parcel of land in West Jordan, Utah, which the government sought to forfeit in Justin Peck’s criminal case. Peck was convicted of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The government alleged Peck held an ownership interest in the land. The district court agreed with Dunn and blocked the forfeiture, leading to the government's appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Utah initially found the land forfeitable based on Peck’s plea agreement. However, during the ancillary proceeding, the district court determined that Dunn had a superior interest in the property. Dunn had purchased the land with untainted funds and later paid off a loan using funds authorized by Peck. The court found that Dunn’s interest in the property was superior to Peck’s at all relevant times under Utah law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Dunn’s interest in the property was superior to Peck’s and the government’s under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). The court noted that the government had only sought to forfeit the land and had not pursued other potentially forfeitable property or substitute property. The court also emphasized that the government did not challenge the district court’s findings under Utah law, which governed the determination of property interests in federal forfeiture proceedings. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly vacated the preliminary forfeiture order and granted Dunn’s third-party petition. View "United States v. Peck" on Justia Law

Andy Nahkai was charged with two counts of abusive sexual contact with a child and one count of abusive sexual contact with a child aged 12-16, all occurring within Indian country. During the investigation, Nahkai made incriminating statements to law enforcement officers while being interviewed in an unlocked police vehicle parked outside his home. The officers did not administer Miranda warnings before the interview.The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Nahkai’s motion to suppress the statements he made during the interview. The court concluded that the interrogation was custodial, and the statements were not voluntary under the Fifth Amendment. The court based its decision on the officers' failure to inform Nahkai that he was free to leave, the accusatory nature of the questioning, and the police-dominated atmosphere of the encounter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Nahkai was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona. The court found that the totality of the circumstances did not support the conclusion that Nahkai’s freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. The court noted that Nahkai was not physically restrained, the vehicle doors were unlocked, and the questioning, although accusatory, was not unusually confrontational. The court reversed the district court’s order suppressing Nahkai’s statements and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Nahkai" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Dante Peppers, was convicted in 2023 for conspiring to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it and for using a communication facility to facilitate the conspiracy. The investigation began in 2019 and 2020, focusing on Tyrone Millsap, who was distributing methamphetamine in Kansas. Peppers was implicated through Facebook Messenger communications and involvement in methamphetamine sales arranged by Millsap. Peppers was also found to have been involved in a traffic stop where methamphetamine was found.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas tried Peppers, and the jury convicted him of conspiracy and using a communication facility to facilitate the conspiracy. However, the jury acquitted him of two counts of distributing methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Peppers to sixty months in prison for the conspiracy charge and forty-eight months for the communication facility charge, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Peppers argued that the superseding indictment's conspiracy count was constructively amended at trial and that the district court abused its discretion in excluding a defense investigator’s hearsay testimony. The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was no constructive amendment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the hearsay testimony. The court affirmed Peppers' 2023 convictions.Additionally, Peppers challenged the revocation of his supervised release for a 2016 felon-in-possession conviction, which was based on his 2023 drug-trafficking convictions. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Peppers' supervised release, even though the term expired before the conclusion of the 2023 prosecution, as the delay was reasonably necessary. The court affirmed the revocation of Peppers' supervised release. View "United States v. Peppers" on Justia Law

Perry Maryboy was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Antonio Montowine. The incident occurred on April 13, 2018, near Bluff, Utah. Maryboy claimed the shooting was accidental, occurring when his firearm discharged prematurely as he attempted to fire a warning shot. The government argued that Maryboy intentionally shot Montowine in the back of the head or acted with extreme recklessness.The United States District Court for the District of Utah presided over Maryboy's trial. Initially, a mistrial was declared due to Covid-19 complications. In a subsequent trial, the jury found Maryboy guilty of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Maryboy was sentenced to 180 months for the murder and an additional mandatory 120 months for the firearm charge. Maryboy appealed, arguing that the government’s expert witness improperly opined on his mental state and that the district court failed to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the expert witness's testimony violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by opining on Maryboy's mental state, which could have influenced the jury's decision on the degree of recklessness. Additionally, the court determined that the jury instructions were flawed because they did not require the government to disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for the second-degree murder charge. These errors were deemed to have affected Maryboy's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings.The Tenth Circuit reversed Maryboy's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of proper jury instructions and adherence to evidentiary rules. View "United States v. Maryboy" on Justia Law

Barry Jackson was convicted of illegally possessing two firearms as a domestic violence misdemeanant. After his conviction, but before pleading guilty, he was found with three additional firearms, one of which had a large-capacity magazine. Jackson challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Jackson's motion to declare § 922(g)(9) unconstitutional. Jackson then pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. At sentencing, the court determined that Jackson's possession of firearms on two separate occasions constituted relevant conduct, leading to a higher advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Jackson was sentenced to 72 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 922(g)(9) is constitutional as applied to Jackson, consistent with the principles established in United States v. Rahimi and United States v. Rogers. The court found that Jackson's prior domestic violence convictions demonstrated a propensity for violence, justifying his disarmament under § 922(g)(9). The court also upheld the district court's determination that Jackson's possession of additional firearms was relevant conduct, supporting the sentence imposed.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction and sentence, concluding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A motorist on Interstate 10 near Deming, New Mexico, reported a man in the median with a firearm who may have fired shots. Police officers encountered Gilbert Valencia in a nearby mesquite field, matching the description and holding what appeared to be an AR-style rifle. Valencia did not consistently comply with officers' commands and moved his hand on the weapon, prompting five officers to shoot him. Valencia died from his wounds. His estate brought federal and state law claims against the City of Deming, individual officers, Luna County, and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment for the officers, asserting qualified immunity, and dismissed the Estate’s claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The Estate appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their use of lethal force was objectively reasonable based on the circumstances. The court found that the Estate failed to identify a dispute of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the state law claims. The court held that the officers' actions were reasonable given the perceived threat and the totality of the circumstances, including Valencia's non-compliance and the officers' belief that he was armed and dangerous. The court also determined that the New Mexico Tort Claims Act did not apply to the City of Deming, as it only applies to law enforcement officers. View "Cruz v. City Of Deming" on Justia Law