Martha Alicia Vazquez

The case concerned a former employee who sued the New Mexico Department of Information Technology and several individual defendants after her termination, claiming violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act stemming from her request for leave due to pregnancy complications, along with due process allegations. The court ruled on multiple pending motions, granting defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Count IV, denying summary judgment as to DoIT, and granting in part and denying in part summary judgment regarding the individual defendants. It concluded that the plaintiff was ineligible for FMLA protection because she was a probationary employee without a protected property interest in continued employment and had not demonstrated the elements required for estoppel or waiver claims. The court also found no evidence that the plaintiff had changed her position in reliance on any belief that her leave was FMLA-protected, as her absence resulted from an unforeseen medical emergency.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Perez-Partida, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of his identity after police stopped his vehicle based on an anonymous tip about drug activity, obtained consent to search (communicated in broken Spanish), found drugs, and arrested him; at the city prisoner transport center, an ICE partnership policy led to fingerprinting that revealed his prior deportation and triggered federal charges for illegal reentry after an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) & (b). The court granted the motion to suppress, holding that the identity evidence constituted fruit of the poisonous tree from the unlawful arrest and search. The core reasoning was that the fingerprints and A-file were obtained through deliberate exploitation of the illegal detention via the ICE screening policy rather than through any independent or attenuated means that would dissipate the taint under the Fourth Amendment.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

This case involves Petitioner Carl Case's second or successive federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1982 New Mexico convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree criminal sexual penetration. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Case met the strict requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B) based on newly discovered evidence, including credible recantations by two trial witnesses who admitted fabricating their testimony, an undisclosed witness statement, and DNA results showing no male DNA on the victim. The court concluded that the state courts' rejection of Case's Brady claim and related arguments involved unreasonable factual determinations and applications of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court conditionally granted the habeas petition, denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, and denied Case's partial motion for reconsideration as moot.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, defendant Franco-Lopez was indicted on charges of transporting illegal aliens, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 after allegedly picking up undocumented individuals near the U.S.-Mexico border. Following a jury trial that resulted in guilty verdicts on the conspiracy count and one transportation count, the defendant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, arguing that the government failed to prove the transported individual had entered the United States or that there was interdependence among conspiracy members. The court denied the motion, holding that when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the trial evidence—including testimony from a co-defendant, Border Patrol agents, and the transported individual—was sufficient for a rational jury to find the essential elements of both offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

immigrationcriminal law

This case is a long-running federal adjudication of water rights in New Mexico's Pojoaque Basin, brought by the State Engineer against private landowners and with the United States and several Pueblos intervening as plaintiffs. The court addressed a motion by settling parties seeking court approval of procedures to review a proposed settlement agreement, enter a partial final decree, issue an interim administrative order, and ultimately enter a final decree. The court granted the motion in part, directing specific revisions to the proposed orders to clarify the magistrate judge's role in handling objections, remove unnecessary service requirements, and ensure that objectors must demonstrate a legally cognizable injury to have standing, consistent with Tenth Circuit precedent and New Mexico water statutes.

environmentpropertyprocedurefederal power

In this case, the court addressed a motion to determine the admissibility of three out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators in a federal drug trafficking prosecution arising from a border checkpoint stop where marijuana and firearms were found in the vehicles. After a James hearing, the court ruled that statements made by co-defendants Fuller and Johnson directly to Border Patrol Agent Meza were inadmissible because they were testimonial in nature and violated the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington. The court further ruled that a statement by co-conspirator "Felix" to another co-defendant was admissible as a non-testimonial statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The core reasoning distinguished between testimonial statements, which require confrontation regardless of hearsay exceptions, and non-testimonial co-conspirator statements, which may be admitted under the rule without additional Sixth Amendment scrutiny.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a civil forfeiture action brought by the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) to seize $148,840 in currency found during a traffic stop, which the government alleged was connected to drug trafficking. Claimant David Austin asserted ownership of the money but invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to deposition questions about the currency's source, packaging, his employment, and travel details, and he withdrew his innocent owner defense. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that Austin lacked Article III standing to contest the forfeiture because he provided no evidence establishing a colorable ownership interest in the property.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a class action by New Mexico smokers who purchased Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights cigarettes, alleging that Philip Morris violated the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act by deceptively marketing the cigarettes as "light" or lower in tar and nicotine, when the design caused higher actual deliveries due to smoker compensation and FTC testing methods. Defendant Philip Morris moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were expressly preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), impliedly preempted by federal law, and exempt under a state statute because the FTC had expressly permitted the marketing. The court granted the express preemption motion as to claims based on fraudulent concealment, failure to warn, and warning neutralization but denied it as to fraudulent misrepresentation claims, and denied the implied preemption motion, reasoning that the FCLAA's preemption clause (as interpreted in Cipollone) bars only certain warning-related claims while FTC consent orders and regulations address but do not fully preempt or exempt the misrepresentation theory.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a non-Indian woman employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a special education teacher who applied repeatedly for an Education Specialist position but was not selected in favor of Native American candidates under the Indian Preference policy. She filed claims alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, and age, along with retaliation, after the job requirements were adjusted across multiple vacancy announcements and candidates with Indian Preference were hired. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the Indian Reorganization Act mandates Indian Preference in BIA hiring, which the Supreme Court has upheld as lawful and not constituting racial discrimination under Title VII. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for some claims or show that the preference-based hiring rationale was pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved Defendant Juan Pacheco-Soto, who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), an offense carrying a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. After the Supreme Court's Booker decision rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, the defendant filed a sentencing memorandum requesting a downward departure based on his status as a deportable alien, along with other personal history factors. The court granted the request for a departure on the deportable alien ground but imposed the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of sixty months.

criminal lawimmigration

This case involved the sentencing of Kenneth Bitsilly, who pleaded guilty to engaging in a sexual act with a 15-year-old girl on an Indian reservation, resulting in her pregnancy. The court addressed whether a two-level undue influence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.2(b)(2)(B) applied to the advisory Guidelines calculation and whether a sentence outside the Guidelines range was warranted under United States v. Booker. The court ruled that the enhancement did not apply because the defendant rebutted the presumption of undue influence with evidence that the relationship was consensual and supported by the victim's family. It then imposed a sentence of two years' probation after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), finding that incarceration was unnecessary for deterrence or rehabilitation in light of the case's unique circumstances.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Juan Zapata-Treviño, a Mexican national who pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, following a 2003 misdemeanor sexual contact conviction in Colorado. After Booker v. United States rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, the court calculated an advisory range of 41-51 months based on a 16-level enhancement for a prior crime of violence but imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 15 months. The court reasoned that the enhancement overstated the seriousness of the underlying conduct, which was more comparable to an aggravated felony warranting only an 8-level increase, and that a lower sentence better satisfied the purposes in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) including just punishment and avoiding unwarranted disparities.

immigrationcriminal lawfederal power

This case involved New Mexico state investment entities that had purchased WorldCom securities and later sued underwriter banks, WorldCom officers and directors, and Arthur Andersen in state court, asserting claims under the New Mexico Securities Act, common-law negligent misrepresentation, and the federal Securities Act of 1933. After the defendants removed the action to federal court on the ground that it was related to the WorldCom bankruptcy, the plaintiffs moved to remand or abstain while the defendants moved to stay proceedings pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on transferring the case to the consolidated WorldCom proceedings in the Southern District of New York. The court granted the stay until thirty days after the MDL Panel ruled on the plaintiffs’ objections to transfer and denied the remand motion without prejudice. It reasoned that deferring to the MDL court would promote judicial economy, uniformity, and consistency because that court had already addressed identical jurisdictional and removal issues in numerous parallel bondholder actions, the stay would be brief, and the plaintiffs had shown no substantial prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 2002 incident in which Albuquerque police officers responded to a 911 call about a man threatening suicide while armed with a knife; the officers used beanbag rounds and then lethal force, killing the decedent. Plaintiffs, including the decedent's estate and his girlfriend, brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, along with state-law claims for battery and wrongful death against the individual officers and the City. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part, holding that qualified immunity could not be granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the decedent posed an immediate threat, given inconsistencies in the officers' accounts about his movements and the manner in which he held the knife. The court also found triable issues on the objective reasonableness of the force used by Officers Bitsoih and Etheredge and on the City's potential vicarious liability under state law, while allowing further briefing on certain claims.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Defendant M.C., a juvenile, charged with second degree murder at the Fort Wingate Indian School on federal land in New Mexico. The court considered a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, determining whether the school location qualified as "Indian country" under federal law. The court granted the motion, holding that the school community on Parcel Three was not a dependent Indian community because, although under federal superintendence, the land was not set aside by the federal government for the use of Indians as Indian land. Therefore, federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 did not apply, as the offense did not occur in Indian country.

criminal lawfederal power

In Borges v. United States, plaintiffs Joseph and Maria Borges challenged the IRS Appeals' approval of a levy on their assets to collect over $414,000 in delinquent employment taxes owed by their dairy business for tax years 1999 and 2000, after their proposed installment payment plans were rejected during a collection due process hearing. The district court denied the government's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the administrative record did not contain enough information on the Appeals Officer's analysis of the plaintiffs' financial condition or the correct amount of outstanding tax liabilities to permit judicial review for abuse of discretion. The court remanded the matter to IRS Appeals for a new hearing before a different officer to first determine the accurate tax liabilities and then consider collection alternatives, requiring the hearing record to document the financial analysis in sufficient detail.

taxesprocedure

In United States v. Harrison, the defendant moved to withdraw his 2003 guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine after his original counsel was replaced. The court granted the motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), finding that the defendant had shown fair and just reasons for withdrawal. The core reasoning centered on deficient representation, including the court's failure to address the defendant's pre-plea request for new counsel and counsel's incorrect statements suggesting that the stipulated drug quantity could be reduced or that probation could lead to a lower sentence, rendering the plea neither knowing nor voluntary. The court found no actual prejudice to the government and determined that granting the motion would not waste judicial resources.

criminal lawprocedure

In Garcia v. United States, the petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence in a federal drug conspiracy case, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The claim centered on his attorney's failure to object to the Pre-Sentence Report's addition of two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) for committing the offense while on probation for a DWI conviction, which rendered him ineligible for the safety valve reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The court granted the motion, finding that the conspiracy had ended before probation began, so the points were applied in error. Counsel's omission was deemed deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington because it stemmed from a misunderstanding of the facts and directly caused prejudice by blocking a sentence reduction of more than three years. The court ordered the government to allow debriefing and resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Defendant Oscar Felix Carrazco-Escalante's motion to suppress evidence in a federal criminal prosecution arising from a November 2001 incident on Highway 80 in New Mexico, where Border Patrol agents encountered a truck loaded with marijuana bundles, pursued its fleeing occupants, and then questioned the defendant after he approached the scene, obtained his resident alien card, and elicited statements about his presence and activities without Miranda warnings. The court granted the motion after a hearing, determining that the questioning was custodial and violated the defendant's rights, while also finding portions of the agents' testimony about matching footprints and prior statements not credible due to inconsistencies with other evidence and reports. The decision rested on the lack of credible support for the government's account of how the defendant was located and questioned, leading to suppression of the resulting statements and evidence.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

This case involved the National Labor Relations Board and a union challenging a labor ordinance enacted by the Pueblo of San Juan that barred requiring union membership as a condition of employment on tribal lands, claiming that the National Labor Relations Act preempted the tribe's authority to enact such a measure. The district court and Tenth Circuit had previously upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of tribal sovereign power not clearly displaced by federal statute. In the present opinion addressing the Pueblo's subsequent application, the court granted attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after finding that the NLRB's litigation position lacked substantial justification, that the Pueblo qualified as a prevailing party with net worth below the statutory cap, and that the requested fees were reasonable except for an amount covering state gross receipts taxes, which the court excluded.

labor & employmentfederal power