Unpublished Decisions

U.S. v. Jackett, 2015 WL 2263700 (5/15/15) (Wyo.) (unpb'd) - A good categorical-approach, controlled-substance offense case. The 10th holds that § 4B1.2(b)'s definition of "controlled substance offense" includes possession of a non-controlled substance only if the intent of the possession is to manufacture a controlled substance. So, Mr. Jackett's conviction for 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) did not necessarily constitute a controlled substance offense because the offense could be committed just by knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the substance would be used to manufacture a controlled substance. The district court erred by not applying the modified categorical approach to determine whether the jury in Mr. Jackett's prior case necessarily found he had the requisite intent.

U.S. v. Gutierrez-Carranza, 2015 WL 2239212 (5/14/15) (Okl) (unpub'd) - Imposing a supervised release term on an alien reentry defendant was substantively reasonable, despite the guidelines' preference for no such thing, § 5D1.1(c). The guideline, § 5D1.1, n. 5, says supervised release might be appropriate if it adds a measure of deterrence and protection based on the circumstances of a particular case. Here deterrence and public protection are served where .Mr. Gutierrez-Carranza's wife and children live in the U.S., he defied a prior deportation order and he had a violent criminal history.

U.S. v. George Allen, 2015 WL 2263690 (5/15/15) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - The 10th holds a supervised release condition precluding possession of sexually explicit material involving adults is reasonably related to Mr. Allen's child pornography affinity and no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary for § 3553(a) purposes. The 10th stresses how attracted to child porn Mr. Allen is.

U.S. v. Brian Allen, 2015 WL 2263701 (5/15/15) (Wyo.) (unpub'd) - Mr. Allen's gang affiliation was admissible to provide relevant context, the 10th says. It explained why Mr. Allen wanted to kidnap the victim and possessed a gun to accomplish it - the victim had claimed to be part of Mr. Allen's gang, which I guess was a bad thing to do - and why Mr. Allen's buddy would help him kidnap the victim - the friend was a member of Mr. Allen's gang. The gang evidence was "an integral and natural part" of the witnesses' accounts to establish Mr. Allen, a felon, possessed a firearm. No 403 problem here because the evidence was probative and restricting the evidence and providing a limiting instruction reduced the prejudice.

Helfferich v. Marcantel, 2015 WL 2239083 (5/14/15) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - No liability where Mr. Heifferich alleged officers transported him from one state facility to another for 9 hours in a hot, poorly-ventilated transport vehicle with 11 other inmates without a restroom break while the vehicle was driven carelessly. The allegations did not rise to the level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain necessary to implicate the 8th Amendment.