Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Emanuel Godinez-Perez pleaded guilty to three criminal counts arising out of his role in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Godinez to a term of imprisonment of 108 months, to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. Godinez appealed his sentence. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Godinez that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level and, in turn, his advisory Guidelines sentencing range. Specifically, the court erred in failing to make particularized findings regarding relevant conduct attributable to Godinez. Consequently, the Court remanded this case back to the district court with directions to vacate Godinez’s sentence and resentence him. View "United States v. Godinez-Perez" on Justia Law

Brayan Alexis Osuna-Gutierrez was arrested in Kansas. He was a passenger in a rental vehicle on a cross-country trip. The police found approximately seven grams of marijuana belonging to Gutierrez that he had legally purchased in Colorado. Police also found approximately three kilograms of methamphetamine in the rear portion of the car. The government charged Gutierrez and his co-defendants with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Gutierrez ultimately pled guilty to “Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute" (the government dropped the methamphetamine charges). The district court sentenced him to time served, approximately seven months. After leaving jail, Gutierrez was immediately transferred to immigration custody and served with Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (the expedited removal process). During the removal process, an officer within DHS concluded that Gutierrez was not a legal permanent resident, having come to the United States from Mexico with his mother when he was one year old without being legally admitted. Further, Gutierrez had pled guilty to an aggravated felony. Gutierrez timely petitioned for review of his removal and was deported back to Mexico. Gutierrez argued his deportation was improper because: (1) the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) expedited removal process is illegal; and (2) in any event, it was improper for DHS to use the expedited removal process on Gutierrez because he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, not a felony. The Tenth Circuit found Gutierrez was wrong on both counts, and denied Gutierrez's petition for review. View "Osuna-Gutierrez v. Johnson" on Justia Law

George Rouse hanged himself shortly after defendants, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Agents Francia Thompson and Marvin Akers transported him to the Grady County Law Enforcement Center (GCLEC) for booking. Rouse’s mother, Regina Williams, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. She alleged the defendants knew Rouse was suicidal when they delivered him to GCLEC but failed to inform GCLEC’s booking staff of that fact. Defendants appealed, arguing the district court erred in its order denying their motion to reconsider its denial of their motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that defendants didn’t expressly designate the district court's order in their notice of appeal. "And we can’t fairly infer an intent to appeal that order from any of the other relevant documents before us." View "Williams v. Akers" on Justia Law

Petitioner Constantine Golicov, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order concluding that his Utah state conviction for failing to stop at a police officer’s command rendered him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The specific provision of the INA that served as grounds for removal provided that an alien is subject for removal if that person commits an "aggravated felony." The INA defined the term "aggravated felony" to include "crimes of violence." Petitioner argued to the Tenth Circuit that "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague. After review of the Supreme Court precedent of "Johnson v. United States," (135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)), and applying that case to the facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the INA's term was indeed vague. The order of removal was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Golicov v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jesus Domingo Martinez-Cruz appealed the district court’s twelve-level enhancement of his sentence under United States Sentencing Guideline (the Guidelines) section 2L1.2, Application Note 5, for his previous conviction for Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute. Defendant argued that this was error, because Application Note 5 used the term “conspiring” without defining it, thus the categorical approach should have applied. Because the generic definition of conspiracy required an overt act while his conviction under 21 U.S.C. 846 did not, defendant argued, his previous conviction was not a categorical match for the generic definition of “conspiracy” and he should therefore have received only an eight-level enhancement for a prior aggravated felony conviction. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Cruz" on Justia Law

While responding to an early-morning 911 call, Officer Blaine Parnell of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, attempted to arrest Jakota Wolfname on two outstanding tribal warrants. Parnell ordered Wolfname to put his hands behind his back; instead, Wolfname ran away. As the result of his flight from Parnell and the ensuing scuffle, a grand jury indicted Wolfname for “knowingly and forcibly assault[ing], resist[ing], and interfer[ing] with” Parnell while Parnell “was engaged in the performance of his official duties, which resulted in bodily injury to . . . Parnell.” The jury found Wolfname guilty of resisting and interfering with Parnell in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 111(a)(1). It also found that Wolfname made physical contact with Parnell. But the jury wrote, “No,” next to the assault option on the verdict form. And despite testimony from Parnell and his orthopedic surgeon indicating that Parnell suffered damage to a ligament in his thumb during the struggle, the jury also declined to find that Wolfname inflicted bodily injury on Parnell. The district court imposed a 24-month prison sentence. Wolfname appealed. In this case, the parties asked the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether assault was an element of every conviction under 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1). The Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury it had to find Wolfname assaulted Parnell. This error was plain error, and warranted reversal. View "United States v. Wolfname" on Justia Law

This issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether, under the totality of circumstances, two Kansas Highway Patrol Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and search the vehicle of Peter Vasquez. In particular, this case presented the question of what weight to afford the state citizenship of a motorist in determining the validity of a search. Vasquez argued that after stopping him for a traffic violation, the Officers detained him and searched his car without reasonable suspicion. As justification, the Officers claimed, among other things, Vasquez was a citizen of Colorado, driving alone on Interstate 70 from Colorado through Kansas, in the middle of the night, in a recently purchased, older-model car. The district court concluded the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Vasquez’s asserted right was not clearly established. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, concluding the Officers acted without reasonable suspicion and violated clearly established precedent. In particular, the Court concluded that the Officers impermissibly relied on Vasquez’s status as a resident of Colorado to justify the search of his vehicle. The Court reversed and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Vasquez v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Former FBI agent Robert Lustyik wanted to help his friend and business partner, Michael Taylor, in return for payment. Taylor owned American International Security Corporation (AISC), a company that offered security and defense contracting services. The Department of Defense awarded AISC a contract in 2007 to provide training and related services to Afghan Special Forces. In mid-2010, the United States began investigating AISC regarding fraud and money laundering in connection with the 2007 contract. In September 2011, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action against assets owned by Taylor and AISC, which resulted in the seizure of more than $5 million dollars from AISC’s bank account. Lustyik used his status as an FBI agent to impair the government’s investigation of Taylor, including attempting to establish Taylor as a confidential source. Lustyik was indicted on charges related to the obstruction of justice. Prior to trial, Lustyik pleaded guilty to all charges in the indictment without a plea agreement. After his plea, his lead counsel withdrew and Lustyik obtained new counsel. On the eve of sentencing, counsel sought an order allowing him to obtain security clearance to review classified material he believed might be relevant for sentencing. The district court, having previously reviewed the documents, deemed them irrelevant to the sentencing issues, denied the motion, and subsequently sentenced Lustyik to 120 months’ imprisonment. Lustyik argued on appeal that the district court’s order denying his counsel access to the classified materials violated his Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing. Finding that the district court’s decision was not presumptively prejudicial to Lustyik’s advocacy at sentencing, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding the documents were not relevant for sentencing, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lustyik" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Ernest Marquez challenges the two-level sentence enhancement imposed under United States Sentencing Guideline section 3B1.1(c) for his role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in criminal activity. A jury convicted Marquez of three drug charges, including, as relevant to this appeal, possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The testimony and evidence at trial showed that Marquez obtained the "meth" in question by arranging for two women, Veronica Hernandez and Belinda Galvan, to drive from Las Cruces, New Mexico, to the vicinity of Tucson, Arizona, exchange money he had provided them for a brick of meth, and deliver the meth to him back in Las Cruces. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's sentencing decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Marquez" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the sentencing and resentencing of defendant-appellee Gregory Womack, who was convicted of federal crimes involving the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the initial sentence based on the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the crimes. But after issuance of that decision, the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted two guideline amendments: Amendment 782 and Amendment 750. Amendment 782 lowered the base offense levels for certain drug weights. But Amendment 750 had the opposite effect for crimes involving methamphetamine, promulgating a revised drug-equivalency table in which each gram of methamphetamine had a higher marijuana-equivalent weight than when defendant had committed his crimes. Defendant successfully moved for a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), arguing that the only relevant amendment was Amendment 782. After its review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that Amendment 750 was relevant and precluded defendant from obtaining a reduction in his sentence. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss defendant's motion based on a lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Womack" on Justia Law