Tenth Circuit

The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after his backpack was searched by agents following his arrest on a Greyhound bus. While the agents had probable cause to arrest him and seize the backpack, they did not have the authority to search the contents of his bag without a warrant, and the plain view doctrine did not apply where the agent was rummaging around the insides of the backpack “in an exploratory manner.”

The Tenth Circuit remanded a defendant for re-sentencing after holding that the district court clearly erred in calculating the guidelines and determining a sentence. The district court had rejected the parties recommended sentence, noting it would have had to depart “10 levels” to get there, where the court only would have had to depart one level. Since the court relied on that error in sentencing the defendant substantially above the recommended sentence, the error was reversible, and the Court remanded for re-sentencing.

The Tenth Circuit vacated a defendant’s sentence after finding that the district court plainly erred in applying a role enhancement. The district court had enhanced the defendant’s guidelines for his money laundering offense based on relevant conduct for his drug offense, which was plainly not allowed under USSG 2S1.1 Application Note 2(C).

The Tenth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction where the prosecutor told the jury in closing arguments that the defendant’s right to be presumed innocent was gone after the close of evidence.

The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of two motions for early termination of probation, which the district judge had denied on the grounds that the defendants had not been sentenced to any prison time. The Tenth Circuit held that nothing in the statute or case law supports an assertion that probation-only sentences must be treated differently for termination, and courts may not make decisions about whether to grant early termination based on a blanket personal policy and must instead consider the statutory factors as they apply to each individual.

The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of attempted bank robbery charges under 18 USC 2113 where the district court found that the defendant’s attempt to hold up two victims at gunpoint and force them to withdraw money from an ATM did not amount to an attempted “bank robbery” since the defendant would be robbing them, not the bank. Deepening a circuit split between the Fifth Circuit and Seventh Circuit, the Tenth Circuit reversed, concluding that “using force to induce a bank customer to withdraw money from an ATM is federal bank robbery.”

The Tenth Circuit vacated a defendant’s sentence and remanded for re-sentencing after the district court imposed a higher sentence based on the defendant’s decision to plead guilty without a plea agreement with the Government. The Court concluded that a defendant’s decision whether to enter an “open plea” does not fall under one of the factors listed in 18 USC 3553, and it was therefore procedurally unreasonable for the judge to consider that fact in imposing a higher sentence.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a defendant’s conviction after he challenged an officer’s warrantless search of his rental car during a traffic stop. The Court held that the officer did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop where reasonable suspicion existed to extend the stop based on the incongruity between the defendant’s stated travel plans and his rental car agreement, inconsistencies in the defendant’s travel history, the disparity between the cost of flying versus renting a car, and the defendant’s emphasis on his military background in response to questioning. Moreover, despite the officer initially commanding the defendant to open his trunk and let him search his luggage, the Court held the defendant’s consent was voluntary where the officer subsequently confirmed he had permission and the circumstances showed the officer was not acting authoritatively or in a confrontational manner.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed a defendant’s conviction despite finding that the district court violated Rule 605 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which prohibits judges from testifying as witnesses. After the defendant had testified that there had been a second video, not shown to the jury, which would have shown the government’s video was manufactured, the district judge instructed the jury that there was only one video in the case. While this clearly violated Rule 605, the Court concluded that the violation was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have issued opinions over the past few weeks holding that district courts have broad, independent discretion in determining whether an inmate has established “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A). The courts join the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits in recognizing the broad discretion of district courts, creating a substantial majority of the circuits. The other circuits have not yet addressed this issue.