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

In December 2019, defendant-appellant Steven Anderson was stopped by police after a woman complained he was harassing her and an officer observed him walking in the street in violation of a city ordinance. Anderson provided the officers with false identifying information and was arrested for concealing his identity. During a search incident to arrest, law enforcement found a firearm and a crystal-like substance determined to be methamphetamine on his person. Following a failed motion to suppress, Anderson pled guilty to being a felon in possession. At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and sentenced Anderson to fifty-one months in prison. On appeal, Anderson challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the firearm was discovered in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He also argues the district court erroneously applied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), primarily because it relied on an uncorroborated police report not admitted into evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant Gerardo Jimenez was a habitual violator of immigration law. Between 1995 and the incident under review here, Defendant illegally entered the United States from his native Mexico and been returned there on nine previous occasions. He was convicted of heroin trafficking in Oklahoma state court, for which he received an eight-year prison sentence (four years suspended). The Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Defendant with one count of unlawfully reentering the United States as a removed alien. Defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and the case proceeded to sentencing. At sentencing, the district court first adopted the PSR without objection and denied Defendant’s motions for a downward departure. When the Government indicated it did not wish to be heard, the district judge decided to rule on the motion for variance before affording Defendant the opportunity to allocute. After making this statement, and explaining his rationale in greater detail, the district judge invited Defendant to allocute. Defendant apologized for his wrongdoing and promised he would not offend again. Apparently unpersuaded, the district judge sentenced Defendant to 57 months’ imprisonment—the maximum under the guideline range. On appeal, Defendant contended the district judge violated his right to allocution at sentencing. Defendant did not object to this alleged violation before the district court. The Tenth Circuit determined that reversing under the circumstances here would represent an expansion of existing precedents, and that a case on plain error review was not the appropriate occasion for it to broaden the application of circuit caselaw. The Court affirmed the district court based on a plain error review. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

In 2011, defendant-appellant Joshua Slinkard pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to child sex abuse, lewd molestation, and possession of child pornography. The state court sentenced him to 30 years in prison. But in May 2021 the State vacated Slinkard’s conviction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). Slinkard was then indicted in federal district court on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian country, and one count of possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty on all three counts without the benefit of a plea bargain. After adopting the factual recitations of the PSR and confirming Slinkard’s advisory guideline sentence, the district court recited the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and offered defense counsel the opportunity to be heard on the application of those factors in Slinkard’s case. Defense counsel asked the court to consider an oral motion for a downward variance based in part on Slinkard having already served 12 years in state prison. The government requested a life sentence. The court stated it would not vary from the advisory guideline for sentencing. The court then asked Slinkard if he wished to make a statement, but he declined. After the government made a statement on behalf of the victim, the court imposed a sentence of two terms of life in prison and one term of 240 months, all to run concurrently. In his single issue on appeal, Slinkard contended the district court plainly erred when it conclusively announced his sentence before permitting him to allocute. To this, the Tenth Circuit concurred: the court’s pre-allocution statement was a definitive announcement of sentence, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) and Tenth Circuit precedent. The sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Slinkard" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Conner Polk appealed his four-year prison sentence under the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13, for committing a state-law offense on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. Polk argued the district court should have considered imposing a shorter prison term under an Oklahoma statute that permitted a departure from a mandatory minimum sentence in certain circumstances. Because this state law conflicted with federal sentencing policy, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the district court properly declined to apply it. The Court, therefore, affirmed Polk’s sentence. View "United States v. Polk" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Omar Francisco Orduno-Ramirez pled guilty to a conspiracy drug offense. He received a below-Guidelines-range prison sentence of 144 months, which was affirmed on direct appeal. After he pled guilty, but before he was sentenced, the Kansas United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) obtained soundless video recordings of five meetings between Orduno-Ramirez and his attorney. Orduno-Ramirez sought postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing the Government violated the Sixth Amendment by intruding on his meetings with counsel. The district court denied relief, holding that Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 1995) did not apply to post-plea intrusions. Instead, the court determined that Orduno-Ramirez was required to show prejudice and found he had not done so. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed the denial of Orduno-Ramirez’s § 2255 motion. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Shillinger per se rule did not apply. The Court affirmed because the Government showed the intrusion did not prejudice Orduno-Ramirez’s sentencing, and Orduno-Ramirez did not argue he suffered any prejudice. View "United States v. Orduno-Ramirez" on Justia Law

Two Yellowstone Park rangers received an alert that a park employee had spotted Michael Bullinger, a fugitive wanted for allegedly shooting and killing three women in Idaho. The report said Bullinger was leaving the park in a white Toyota with a Missouri license plate. But the employee was mistaken—he had instead spoken with Brett Hemry, a man on vacation with his wife, Genalyn, and his seven-year-old daughter. The rangers spotted the white Toyota leaving the park and trailed it. Hemry noticed the rangers and pulled over near a campground sixteen miles east of the park entrance. Waiting for reinforcements, the rangers exited their patrol car and from a distance held the Hemrys at gunpoint until county law enforcement arrived. Once county law enforcement arrived, the rangers moved Mr. and Mrs. Hemry to separate police cruisers. After examining Mr. Hemry’s driver’s license, they set the couple free. The Hemrys sued the rangers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. On a motion to dismiss, the district court denied the rangers qualified immunity for Mrs. Hemry’s false-arrest claim and for Mr. and Mrs. Hemry’s excessive force claims. The rangers appealed. The Tenth Circuit reversed: in the context presented, the Court found the law did not clearly establish this investigative stop amounted to (1) an arrest of Mrs. Hemry without probable cause, or (2) excessive force against the Hemrys. View "Hemry, et al. v. Ross, et al." on Justia Law

After months of delay in his drug-conspiracy prosecution, defendant-appellant Aaron Keith unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds. After his motion was denied, a jury convicted him of all charges. He renewed those speedy-trial arguments before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, attacking all five ends-of-justice findings of the district court. The Tenth Circuit determined Keith could not point to any prejudice stemming from the delays in his case. The Court therefore affirmed denial of Keith's motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Keith" on Justia Law

Law enforcement searched defendant-appellant Tyrell Braxton’s backpack after arresting him and found a gun. Braxton moved to suppress the gun. The government conceded that the warrantless search was not a valid search incident to arrest, but invoked the inevitable-discovery doctrine to avoid suppression of the illegally obtained evidence. The district court agreed with the government and denied the motion to suppress. The Tenth Circuit determined the government’s stated community-caretaking interest in safeguarding Braxton’s personal property by impounding it was significantly undercut by the presence of an individual who arrived on the scene at Braxton’s request and repeatedly asked to take possession of the backpack throughout the arrest process. "The government’s explanation for why the officers could have properly refused this individual’s requests is not persuasive. Nor is it dispositive, on these facts, that Braxton himself did not ask the officers to turn the backpack over." Thus, the Court ruled the government failed to meet its burden to show that law enforcement would have validly retained the backpack, and the inevitable-discovery doctrine did not apply to excuse application of the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence discovered during the illegal search. Accordingly, the district court’s order refusing to suppress the gun was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Braxton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Elsa Palacios, personal representative of the estate of the deceased, Bernardo Palacios Carbajal, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants-Appellees Salt Lake City Police Officers Neil Iversen and Kevin Fortuna in their individual capacities, as well as Salt Lake City Corporation. Plaintiff alleged the officers violated Palacios’ Fourth Amendment rights when he was fatally shot during a police pursuit. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in favor of Defendants, finding a lack of a constitutional violation and that Plaintiff failed to show a violation of clearly established law. On appeal, Plaintiff contended that disputes about material and historical facts precluded summary judgment. According to Plaintiff, the district court erred by not making reasonable factual inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, primarily that: (1) Palacios may have been unaware he was being pursued by police because officers did not verbally identify themselves, because he was severely intoxicated, and he did not match the full description of the robbery suspect; (2) once Palacios fell onto his side during the shooting and did not point his gun at officers, he was effectively subdued; and (3) Palacios’ conduct showed he was attempting to avoid confrontation, not evade arrest. Plaintiff also contended that officers exaggerated the seriousness of the offenses that precipitated the pursuit and that officers should have used less intrusive means of apprehension because Palacios did not pose an imminent threat. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's case. View "Palacios v. Fortuna, et al." on Justia Law

For years, the High Lonesome Ranch restricted access to two roads by locking a gate. But in 2015, during a county meeting, the Garfield County Commission directed the Ranch to remove the locked gate after concluding that the two disputed roads were subject to public rights-of-way. The Ranch refused and filed a declaratory-judgment action in Colorado state court opposing the County’s position. At first, the County asked the state court to dismiss the case for failure to name the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) as a party. But rather than dismissing, the state court ordered the Ranch to join the United States (BLM) as a necessary party, and the Ranch did so. The United States removed the case to federal district court. In October 2020, after a five-day bench trial, the district court ruled that the entire lengths of the two disputed roads were subject to public rights-of-way. On appeal—and for the first time—the Ranch contended that various procedural shortcomings deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also challenged the district court’s rights-of-way rulings. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s adverse-use ruling, but reversed its Colorado R.S. 2477 ruling and remanded for the court to reconsider that ruling under recent circuit authority governing acceptance of R.S. 2477 rights. The Court also remanded for the district court to determine the locations and widths of the rights-of-way by survey. View "High Lonesome Ranch v. Board of County Commissioner, et al." on Justia Law