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

Malachi Moon Seals, at age eighteen, posted graphic and violent threats against federal officials and their families on official websites, causing some recipients to request security protection. A grand jury indicted him on twelve counts: six for threatening or retaliating against federal officials under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1), and six for transmitting threats via interstate communications under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Seals pleaded guilty to all charges. The probation office calculated an advisory sentencing range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment, which made him ineligible for straight probation under the guidelines. Nevertheless, both parties advocated for probation, and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, with hesitation, sentenced Seals to five years’ probation with special conditions.Shortly after beginning probation, Seals violated its terms by posting new threats online. The probation office petitioned for his arrest, and Seals admitted to the violations. The district court revoked his probation and proceeded to resentence him. At the resentencing hearing, the probation office recommended a sentence at the low end of the original guideline range, and the government supported this recommendation. Defense counsel referenced the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Moore, but suggested its holding might be reversed. The district court did not apply the Moore framework and instead sentenced Seals to 36 months’ imprisonment under the original guideline range.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred by not applying the two-step resentencing procedure required by Moore I. The court held that, although the district court plainly erred by not following Moore I’s framework, Seals failed to show that the court was required to impose a 0-month sentence at the first step or that this error was plain. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the post-revocation sentence. View "United States v. Seals" on Justia Law

Law enforcement discovered that an individual had stored child pornography in a Dropbox account, including videos of him sexually abusing two minor girls and other illicit material. The investigation revealed that the Dropbox account was used for personal file storage, with no evidence of sharing or distribution. The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a child and two counts of possession of child pornography, each count corresponding to a different victim. He pleaded guilty to all charges before trial, and the United States Probation Office prepared a pre-sentence report recommending a lengthy prison term.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma adopted the pre-sentence report and sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms totaling 292 months, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Among the special conditions imposed was a restriction prohibiting the defendant from using the Internet or any online computer services without prior written approval from his probation officer. The court did not provide a specific explanation or analysis for imposing this Internet use condition. The defendant did not object to this condition at sentencing but appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to analyze whether the condition satisfied the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error. The court held that the district court plainly erred by imposing the Internet use condition without providing any explanation or analysis as required by law. The Tenth Circuit found that this error was clear under established precedent, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Bycroft" on Justia Law

A woman from Honduras and her two minor sons fled their home country after the murder of her partner, Arturo Robles, by a man named Jonis, who was associated with a gang. Following the murder, Jonis threatened the woman and her children, specifically targeting those related to Arturo. The woman reported these threats to the police, but they failed to act, which she attributed to their ties with gangs. Fearing for their safety, she and her children entered the United States unlawfully in 2014 and sought asylum, arguing that their persecution was due to their membership in Arturo’s nuclear family.After removal proceedings began, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted asylum in 2014, finding the woman and her brother credible and concluding that her family relationship was a central reason for the threats. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further factfinding. In 2019, after additional hearings and evidence, the IJ again granted asylum, finding that the threats were motivated by the family relationship, that the woman could not safely relocate within Honduras, and that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her. The government appealed again, and in 2023, a three-judge BIA panel vacated the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s 2023 order. The court held that the BIA misapplied the clear-error standard required by regulation when reviewing the IJ’s factual findings. The Tenth Circuit found that the IJ’s findings on nexus, internal relocation, and government protection were permissible and not clearly erroneous. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s grant of asylum. View "Ramos v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Police officers investigating a recent carjacking and kidnapping at an Oklahoma City motel received information from the motel manager that a man matching the suspect’s description was staying in a particular room. Upon arrival, one officer looked through a one-inch gap in the window curtains from an open-air walkway outside the room and saw the defendant, Cameron Watkins, sitting on a bed next to a handgun with an extended magazine. This observation led to Watkins’s arrest and the subsequent discovery of a firearm and ammunition in the room. Watkins was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and, in a superseding indictment, with being a felon in possession of ammunition found at a separate crime scene.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Watkins’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the officer’s observation was made from a public area—the motel’s exterior walkway—which was accessible to other guests and staff, and not part of the room’s curtilage. The court concluded there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the officer did not intrude upon a protected area or the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Watkins pleaded guilty to the firearm charge, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was convicted by a jury on the ammunition charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed both convictions. The court held that the officer’s visual observation through the window gap, made from a public walkway using only his unaided senses, did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The walkway was not curtilage, and the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against such observation. The court therefore upheld the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Two elementary school students with intellectual disabilities, through their legal guardians, and a disability advocacy organization challenged the educational placement practices of a public school district. The plaintiffs alleged that the district automatically assigned students with intellectual disabilities to self-contained special education classes in a limited number of designated schools, based solely on IQ-based categories, without conducting individualized assessments to determine whether a general education classroom with supplementary services might be more appropriate for each student. The plaintiffs claimed this practice violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA).After the students’ parents pursued administrative due process hearings under the IDEA, hearing officers dismissed their ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction and, in one case, denied a hearing on the IDEA claim due to lack of parental consent for services. The other student’s hearing officer found that the district had made an appropriate individualized placement. The plaintiffs, joined by the advocacy organization, then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and similarly situated students. The district court dismissed all claims, construing the complaint as seeking only placement in neighborhood schools—a form of relief previously held unavailable under Tenth Circuit precedent—and dismissed the RA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. The court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the district failed to make individualized educational placement determinations stated plausible claims under the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504. The court also found that exhaustion of administrative remedies for the RA claim would have been futile. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District" on Justia Law

John Doe, a Native American juvenile and member of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, was charged in federal court with multiple offenses, including kidnapping a minor on tribal land for the purpose of physical assault. The government filed a six-count juvenile information, and Doe admitted to certain charges, including kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, and provided a factual basis for his admissions. The events occurred in a trailer on the Wind River Indian Reservation, where Doe assaulted two minor victims and instructed one to remain in a closet as he left the scene.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held an admission hearing, where Doe, with counsel, admitted to the relevant charges. The court found a sufficient factual basis and conditionally accepted the admissions. After a delinquency hearing, Doe was adjudicated delinquent on several counts and committed to detention and supervision. Following the district court’s judgment, the Tenth Circuit decided United States v. Murphy, which clarified that the “holds” element of federal kidnapping requires proof the victim was detained for an appreciable period beyond that necessary to commit any related offense. Doe appealed, arguing his admission was not knowing or voluntary because he was not informed of this temporal requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case under the plain error standard. The court held that Murphy did not clearly establish the temporal requirement as an essential element of kidnapping, nor did Doe demonstrate that the district court’s failure to inform him of this requirement was a plain error under well-settled law. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment of delinquency. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

A family from Colombia, consisting of two adults and their minor children, sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States. They had been active members of the Colombian Liberal Party and participated in political campaigning. After receiving threatening phone calls related to their political activities, the family continued their involvement. Subsequently, the father, who was a provisional lawyer and intern at the National Prosecutor’s office, became involved in a property dispute with a man known as Don Rafa, a leader of a narco-trafficking group. Following this, the family received further threats, including armed confrontations and threats against their children, which they attributed to Don Rafa and his associates. The family relocated within Colombia briefly before departing for the United States.After arriving in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security charged the family as removable. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the family credible but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ concluded that the harm suffered did not amount to past persecution, lacked a nexus to a statutorily protected ground, and that internal relocation within Colombia was reasonably available. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal, also rejecting the family’s due process claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision under a substantial-evidence standard. The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate past persecution, a nexus to a protected ground, or that the Colombian government was unable or unwilling to protect them. The court also found that the record did not show the family could not safely relocate within Colombia. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Jimenez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Colorado established a Universal Preschool Program (UPK) following a 2020 voter-approved proposition and subsequent legislation. The program provides public funding for voluntary, universal preschool and requires participating preschools to sign a nondiscrimination agreement. This agreement mandates that preschools offer equal enrollment opportunities regardless of characteristics such as race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income, or disability. The plaintiffs—two Catholic parishes, their preschools, the Archdiocese of Denver, and two parents—challenged the nondiscrimination requirement, arguing that it conflicted with their religious beliefs, particularly regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, and violated their rights under the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held a three-day bench trial. The court found that the nondiscrimination requirement did not violate the First Amendment, denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, and dismissed the Archdiocese for lack of standing. However, the court did enjoin the state from enforcing the nondiscrimination requirement as to religious affiliation for as long as a congregation preference existed, a ruling not challenged on appeal. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of injunctive relief and the dismissal of the Archdiocese.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the nondiscrimination requirement is a neutral law of general applicability and does not target religious status or use. The court found no evidence of religious hostility or individualized exemptions that would undermine general applicability. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ expressive association claim, distinguishing the facts from Supreme Court precedents. Applying rational basis review, the court concluded that the requirement is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of ensuring equal access to preschool. The district court’s denial of injunctive relief was affirmed. View "St. Mary Catholic v. Roy" on Justia Law

The defendant, who had been receiving disability insurance benefits due to a medical diagnosis, operated a jewelry business while collecting these benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) began investigating after suspecting that the defendant was earning income that could affect his eligibility. The SSA asked the defendant whether he had worked or received income since his diagnosis, to which he responded negatively. However, evidence showed that he had significant gross income from jewelry sales, and the SSA determined that his countable income likely exceeded regulatory caps, making him ineligible for benefits. The defendant was subsequently charged with taking government property and making false statements.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over the trial. The government presented evidence of substantial gross income and efforts by the defendant to conceal earnings. The defendant did not provide information about business expenses that could have reduced his countable income. The jury convicted him on multiple counts related to theft of government property and false statements. At sentencing, the district court calculated the loss amount, including benefits paid to the defendant’s children and payments made outside the charged period, resulting in a 15-month prison sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the defendant’s countable income exceeded the regulatory caps, even without detailed expense information, given the high gross income and lack of contrary evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the jury instructions, as the defendant failed to timely challenge the district court’s reasoning. Regarding sentencing, the court held that it was proper to include reasonably foreseeable payments to the defendant’s children and payments outside the charged period in the loss calculation. Any error in including Medicare premiums was deemed harmless. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Sandoval" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was charged with abusive sexual contact of a minor in Indian Country, based on conduct that occurred between 1998 and 2000, when the victim was approximately 15 or 16 years old. The victim reported the abuse to the FBI in 2021, stating that she had previously disclosed it to a therapist at a rape crisis center, but no action was taken at that time. The alleged abuse took place within the Navajo Nation, and the defendant did not contest his status as an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation or the location of the offense.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, which argued that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court found that the extended statute of limitations for sexual offenses against children under 18, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3283, applied to the case. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to a lesser offense—abusive sexual contact in Indian Country—reserving his right to appeal the statute of limitations issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the categorical approach or a case-specific analysis should be used to determine the applicability of § 3283’s extended statute of limitations. The court held that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing and immigration contexts, does not apply to pretrial statute of limitations challenges under § 3283. Instead, a case-specific approach is appropriate, focusing on the facts and charges in the indictment. The court concluded that the offense charged involved the sexual abuse of a minor, so § 3283’s extended limitations period applied. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Tso" on Justia Law