Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Mikolon entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a fugitive. He was sentenced to 209 days of time served. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the incriminating statements he made after he was arrested but before he was advised of his Miranda rights. The trial court found the statements admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda, regardless that the government promised not to use the statements at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion. View "United States v. Mikolon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Benjamin Spence was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. He received a 180 month prison sentence to be followed by four years' supervised release. He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial court failed to exclude proposed testimony of his father that he had never seen the gun he was alleged to have possessed, never saw it fired, and possessed it only for a brief time. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support his conviction, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Spence" on Justia Law

Three New Mexico men kidnaped a disabled Navajo man and branded a swastika into his arm. The United States charged the three with committing a hate crime under 18 U.S.C. 249. The three men contended in district court that the Hate Crimes Act was unconstitutional, claiming Congress lacked the authority to criminalize purely intrastate conduct of this character. The government countered that the Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the necessary authority. The district court agreed with the government. One of the men, Defendant William Hatch, then pled guilty while reserving his right to appeal. He now renews his challenge to the constitutionality of the Act. Like the district court, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Congress has power under the Thirteenth Amendment to enact section 249(a)(1). View "United States v. Hatch" on Justia Law

Police detained Appellant Nathan Briggs and found he was carrying a handgun. He would later be charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. In pleading guilty, Appellant reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the weapon. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, appellant argued the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by the detention. Finding that appellant's detention was constitutional, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. View "United States v. Briggs" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Neilson appealed his sentence for interfering with administration of internal revenue laws. Specifically, he contended that the district court erred in selecting the sentencing guideline under which his sentence would be calculated. Finding no abuse of discretion in picking the most appropriate guideline to match defendant's crime, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Neilson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Elia Ibarra was ordered removed by the Department of Homeland Security for a Colorado conviction on child abuse. The events leading up to her conviction were unclear, but it was undisputed that petitioner's children were unintentionally left home alone while she was at work. No child was injured. Petitioner requested discretionary relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case decided that she was ineligible cancellation of removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit to review the immigration judge's decision that found her Colorado conviction for "child abuse-negligence-no injury" was the same as (or close enough to be categorically considered) "child abuse, neglect or abandonment" as codified under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the Board of Immigration Appeals' then-current interpretation of "child abuse, neglect and abandonment" extended the full range of conduct criminalized by the Colorado statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed the BIA's decision rendering petitioner ineligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. View "Ibarra v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

A methamphetamine dealer and several of his buyers and sellers were indicted for their alleged involvement in a distribution conspiracy. Defendant-buyer Jesus Figueroa-Labrada was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute. His presentence report (PSR) doubled his Sentencing Guidelines range. The sentencing court adopted the PSR but made no particularized findings on defendant's relevant conduct. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculation of methamphetamine attributed to him and the court's failure to make particularized findings. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed on defendant's second challenge and remanded the case for particularized findings and resentencing. View "United States v. Figueroa-Labrada" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Daniel Renteria, Alex Garcia, Jr., and Miguel Ordaz were convicted on various counts relating to a drug conspiracy in two states. Defendants' appeals were consolidated in this opinion. All challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against them, the admission of certain evidence, and the calculation of their sentences. Because the Tenth Circuit found no error in the trial court's judgment (harmless or otherwise), the Court affirmed their respective convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Renteria" on Justia Law

What started as a routine inspection of Defendant-Appellant Norman Washington Berry’s commercial tractor-trailer at a New Mexico port of entry ended with his conviction for possessing with intent to deliver 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (the drugs were nestled inside the fruit crates). Defendant argued on appeal that a "permissive inference" in a jury instruction was given in error, in addition, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, particularly as it established the weight of the marijuana to be more than 100 kilograms. Furthermore, he claimed his sentence ought not to have been enhanced based on his use of a special skill (commercial truck driving) to help commit the crime. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner-appellant Donte Lamonte Parker appealed the denial of his section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. His request for a certificate of appealability (COA) was also denied by the district judge, prompting him to resubmit his application to the Tenth Circuit. Finding not error in the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. Furthermore, because he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court denied petitioner's application for a COA. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law