unpublished decisions

U.S. v. Mobley, 720 F. App'x 441 (12/19/17) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - The 10th reverses a detention order because neither the district court nor the magistrate judge made sufficient findings under § 3142. The government charged Ms. Mobley with international parental kidnaping. The magistrate judge just checked a box that no combination of conditions will assure the defendant's appearance. The 10th faults the judge for providing "very little supporting analysis," having no discussion of why the proposed release conditions couldn't assure Ms. Mobley's appearance and making "scattered, cursory" references to the § 3142(g) factors The judge's findings were also lacking because the judge didn't mention Ms. Mobley's affirmative defense that she was fleeing domestic violence, which, the 10th says, has a potential effect on the weight of evidence, a relevant factor. The 10th rules the district court's analysis was incomplete because it "only" relied on the nature of the offense, Ms. Mobley's history of noncompliance with court orders and the court's fear she would flee again. The 10th criticizes the court for not considering whether any conditions would assure an appearance where Ms. Mobley offered to submit to electronic monitoring, have her parents pay a bond and turn in all her passports. The 10th was also unhappy that the district court didn't consider Ms. Mobley's affirmative defense, despite documentary evidence indicating she did endure domestic violence. The 10th isn't impressed with the court referring to Ms. Mobley's flight as "vigilante justice.". The 10th remands for findings or pretrial release on conditions.

U.S. v. Ingram, 720 F. App'x 461 (12/22/17) (okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th holds the good-faith exception salvages a search based on a warrant that provided "only a tenuous nexus" between drug activity and Mr. Ingram's home. There was ample evidence Mr. Ingram dealt drugs. This, combined with the assertion that a high-level drug trafficker probably keeps incriminating records at his home, was enough for good faith. The 10th notes that there was no assertion that illegal drugs were in Mr. Ingram's home. It cautions that it's not announcing a "broad rule making a suspected drug dealer's house fair game for searches absent evidence of contraband there." But here the warrant affidavit wasn't so devoid of factual support to render police reliance on the judge's warrant issuance to be objectively unreasonable.

U.S. v. Etenyi, 720 F. App'x 445 (Kan.) (unpub'd) - The 10th affirms Mr. Etenyi's identity-fraud-related offenses. The 10th holds that to prove Mr. Etenyi produced a state-issued identification document without lawful authority in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1) it need not prove he obtained the driver's license from someone who had criminal intent. In this case, the state employee who issued the license was an innocent person duped by Mr. Etenyi. A person cannot insulate himself from punishment by manipulating innocent third parties to perform acts on his behalf that would be illegal if he performed them. The 10th also rules that Mr. Etenyi was guilty of violating the aggravated Identity fraud statute even though his brother willingly gave him an employment identification card to get the driver's license.