James O. Browning

In United States v. Tilga, defendants Carolynne Tilga and Michael Chandler faced sentencing after pleading guilty to tax offenses for failing to report income from internet businesses, which they concealed through a network of offshore trusts and entities purchased from the Commonwealth Trust Company between 1998 and 2003. The primary disputes concerned the correct tax loss figure, whether enhancements applied for sophisticated means, special skills, or an aggravating role in the offense, and related presentence report adjustments. The court accepted the parties’ stipulated tax loss of $23,300 and their agreement that no special skills, leadership role, or obstruction enhancements applied, while also allowing post-indictment foreign tax credits to reduce the loss; however, it independently found that the defendants had used sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 based on the complex trust structures involved. Other objections regarding plea benefits and the advisory nature of the guidelines were deemed moot.

criminal lawtaxes

In Arnold v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, the plaintiffs sought uninsured motorist coverage under New Mexico law for loss-of-use damages after their personal property was stolen from a vehicle, without any accompanying physical damage to the property itself. The district court had previously granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the New Mexico Uninsured Motorist Act does not require such coverage. On the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the court partially revisited its ruling and concluded that the state’s highest court would likely interpret the Act to allow loss-of-use coverage in appropriate cases. However, the court upheld the judgment for the insurer on alternative grounds, determining that New Mexico law does not permit recovery of loss-of-use damages for theft of property absent physical damage. The court also denied the request to certify the issues to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Christy, the government moved to reconsider an order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless entry and search of the defendant's New Mexico residence in a federal prosecution tied to the interstate transport of a missing minor (K.Y.). The district court reopened the suppression hearing to receive additional evidence and addressed multiple arguments, including whether deputies conducted an unconstitutional search by peering through window blinds, whether exigent circumstances or the collective-knowledge doctrine justified the entry, and whether the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied. The court ruled that the warrantless search and entry violated the Fourth Amendment, as no exigent circumstances existed despite the minor's reported mental-health issues. It nevertheless declined to suppress the evidence, finding that an out-of-state investigator would have obtained valid search warrants and discovered the same materials through lawful means.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In United States v. Ledezma-Ledezma, the defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and faced a guidelines range of 37–46 months. He sought a downward departure or variance, arguing that his return to the United States was solely to protect his young children from physical and sexual abuse, which he had reported without success from Mexico. The court denied a departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6, concluding that family circumstances like his are common in reentry cases and do not fall outside the heartland. It granted a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), however, and imposed a 27-month sentence because the specific nature and circumstances of the offense—returning to safeguard children rather than for criminal activity—made a lower sentence sufficient to reflect the offense’s seriousness, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and achieve deterrence without being greater than necessary.

immigrationcriminal lawfamily law

This case involves a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction filed by Mauricio Ricardo Quesada Avendano against Kathryn Elizabeth Stoner Smith seeking the return of their two minor children to Mexico. The father alleged that the mother had wrongfully removed and retained the children in the United States after moving with them from Mexico, where the family had lived since 1998. Following evidentiary hearings, the court found that the father established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were wrongfully removed from their habitual residence in Mexico and that the mother had not proven any applicable exceptions under the Convention, including those related to domestic violence. The court therefore ordered the return of the children to Mexico and directed the mother to pay the father's court costs, legal fees, and transportation expenses associated with the return. The court declined to enter certain interim orders, such as entry into the NCIC missing persons system, as they were no longer necessary after the mother appeared with the children.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract and related statutory claims by Two Old Hippies, LLC against Catch the Bus, LLC after the purchase of a restored Volkswagen bus, following entry of a default judgment against the defendant. The court addressed motions for summary judgment on damages and attorneys' fees, awarding $116,818.14 in compensatory damages after reducing the amount to exclude certain advertising fees for which the plaintiff received benefit, but denying treble damages due to lack of supporting allegations or evidence of malice. It also required additional detailed billing information to assess attorneys' fees and costs because the submitted affidavit did not separate work on unsuccessful claims, and scheduled a hearing on statutory damages and reasonable fees. The decision relied on undisputed facts from the complaint and local rules treating unopposed motions and statements as admitted, while considering the matter on the merits despite the defendant's pro se status.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a federal prosecution of Kalvest Ganadonegro for the first-degree murder of a ten-month-old infant who died while in his care, centering on statements he made during a police interview admitting to shaking the child. The government moved to exclude expert psychological testimony from Dr. Samuel Roll, who had evaluated the defendant and identified personality and cultural factors that could increase the likelihood of false admissions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ruling that Dr. Roll's testimony about the credibility of the defendant's statements was inadmissible as irrelevant to the jury's fact-finding role, but that testimony addressing the voluntariness of those statements was admissible because it was reliable, relevant, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The decision rested on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards for expert reliability and relevance, along with balancing under Rule 403, while noting that juries may still weigh the statements' credibility and reliability under pattern jury instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death and negligence action brought by the parents of Michael S. Esquibel after he was killed when his vehicle was struck by an Amtrak train at a railroad crossing on Arriba Road in San Miguel County, New Mexico, while he was en route to a waste transfer facility owned by the City of Las Vegas. The court addressed motions for summary judgment from the City of Las Vegas and San Miguel County, as well as related procedural motions including a motion to strike a supplemental affidavit and requests to defer ruling for additional discovery. The court granted summary judgment to the City of Las Vegas on the grounds that it neither constructed, owned, maintained, nor controlled Arriba Road or the crossing and therefore owed no duty to ensure safe access over property it did not control. The court denied San Miguel County's motion for summary judgment, finding that it could not conclude as a matter of law that the county owed no duty, given its potential role in road maintenance and prior discussions about closing the road. The court also denied the motion to strike and the requests to treat the summary judgment motions as premature, determining that the plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) affidavits failed to identify specific unavailable facts relevant to the motions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Chaco, the defendant faced federal charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(D) for alleged acts against Jane Doe between 2008 and 2010. The court addressed two pretrial motions concerning Dr. Renee Ornelas's testimony from a sexual assault examination conducted months after the alleged incidents: whether the victim's narrative statements to the doctor were admissible and whether the doctor could be impeached with a prior Tenth Circuit decision or offer an opinion on whether abuse occurred. The court ruled that the statements qualified for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) as made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, that impeachment with United States v. Velarde was not permitted, and that the doctor could not diagnose abuse but could note the absence of physical evidence and explain its consistency with the allegations; these rulings rested on the rule's requirements and the representation that the victim would testify at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves defendant Eddie Chaco, Jr., who is facing charges of aggravated sexual abuse and filed a motion to exclude evidence of his prior criminal history from being introduced at trial if he testifies. The court denied the motion in part, allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of Chaco's four felony convictions from 2004 solely for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, but prohibiting disclosure of the specific names or details of those crimes. The reasoning centered on Rule 609's requirement that felony convictions less than ten years old be admitted for impeachment unless their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, with the court determining that a limited presentation mitigates potential prejudice while allowing the jury to assess credibility. The court noted the convictions' recency and the prosecution's willingness to stipulate to minimal information, including that none involved sexual abuse.

criminal lawprocedure

In this federal criminal case, defendant Ernie Martinez pled guilty to distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The advisory sentencing guidelines classified him as a career offender based on multiple prior felony convictions for drug offenses and crimes of violence, producing a range of 188-235 months. Martinez moved for a downward variance to 92 months under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, arguing the range was excessive given his personal circumstances and addiction. The court granted the motion in part, concluding that the full career-offender range overstated the appropriate punishment but declining to ignore his status entirely; it therefore varied downward to a sentence of 120 months, treating the offense as equivalent to level 26 while accounting for his criminal history and prior state sentences.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiff Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc. (POP Diesel), a producer of triglyceride diesel fuel, suing ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and ASTM International for allegedly conspiring to develop and adopt ASTM standards and guidelines that would disadvantage triglyceride fuels in favor of petroleum-based products. The court addressed motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), focusing on whether claims were ripe, whether a plausible Sherman Act §1 conspiracy was alleged, and whether a state-law claim for tortious interference with business relations was stated. It dismissed without prejudice the claims tied to the Fit-for-Purpose Guidelines as unripe, dismissed the antitrust claims for lack of plausible conspiracy allegations, and dismissed the tortious interference claim because it depended on the antitrust claims and failed to identify specific contractual relations that would be disrupted. The reasoning centered on the absence of factual allegations showing agreement among competitors beyond parallel conduct or independent standard-setting activity, combined with the fact that the challenged standards had not yet been adopted into law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs seeking to lift a stay in an adversary proceeding removed from bankruptcy court to determine whether personal injury tort claims against the debtors are dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court granted the motion in part by lifting the stay after the underlying state court claims were resolved via default judgment and appeals were dismissed, but denied the request to adjudicate dischargeability itself. Instead, the court referred the matter back to the bankruptcy court, reasoning that while district courts handle personal injury tort claims, bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over dischargeability determinations once those claims are liquidated.

proceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Hannaweeke, the defendant, a U.S. Postal Service clerk, pled guilty to misappropriating over $9,000 in funds for personal use amid financial difficulties, partly by cashing money orders at a casino. At sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office and government recommended conditions of supervised release requiring her to refrain from gambling, undergo gambling addiction treatment, and verify participation, based on her use of casinos to cash the orders. The court sustained the defendant's objection, finding insufficient evidence by a preponderance that she had a gambling problem, as the recommendations rested on speculation rather than proof, and the burden to establish the need for such conditions lies with the government. Instead, the court imposed an agreed-upon condition prohibiting entry into casinos for gambling purposes while allowing other entries, and noted that existing mental health and financial monitoring conditions could address any future issues.

criminal law

This case involves the sentencing of Defendant Felipe Diaz, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine as part of a larger drug-trafficking organization. The court considered the presentence report, which calculated a guideline range of 57 to 71 months based on an offense level of 25 and criminal history category I, but accepted the parties' plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) for a sentence of 37 months. The decision was based on factors including the government's significant error in identifying the defendant in wiretap communications, the conservative drug quantity used, Diaz's minor role as a money carrier, the presence of firearms not linked to the conspiracy, and the waiver of potential challenges to the wiretap evidence, all of which justified a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to reflect the seriousness of the offense while providing just punishment and deterrence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Defendant Roger Manzanares-Sanabria, who was charged with reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after prior deportation to Honduras. He initially pled not guilty, requested multiple trial continuances, and ultimately entered a guilty plea on the morning his trial was scheduled to begin. The court overruled his objection seeking a 2-level offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). The core reasoning was that the eleventh-hour plea was untimely, as it required the government to invest significant resources in trial preparation, including transporting witnesses, and inconvenienced the jury pool already assigned to the case.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involved the sentencing of defendant Javier Aispuro, also known as Jaime Zamoran-Gonzales, who led a methamphetamine trafficking organization in Albuquerque and was charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court accepted a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement stipulating to a 135-month sentence, despite the defendant's offense level of 41 and criminal history category of II producing a guidelines range of 360 months to life. The court adopted the PSR's facts and guidelines calculations without objection but varied downward, relying on the provable drug quantities from five sales to a confidential informant (1.5 to 5 kilograms), potential weaknesses in the government's case such as ambiguous wiretap evidence and pending suppression motions, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine that the agreed sentence adequately reflected the offense's seriousness, provided just punishment and deterrence, and was sufficient but not greater than necessary.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Lovato, the defendant pled guilty to concealing an event affecting her eligibility for SSI benefits in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1383(a)(3). The court addressed her requests for a downward departure due to overrepresentation of her criminal history in the PSR and a variance based on severe mental health problems, physical impairments including rheumatoid arthritis, and childhood trauma. The court departed downward from criminal history category V to IV and varied downward by treating the offense level as 7, making her eligible for probation, and imposed a sentence of five years probation with eight months of home confinement with electronic monitoring. The core reasoning relied on U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.3(b), 5H1.3, and 5H1.4, along with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, noting that her criminal history was largely dated and her personal circumstances were present to an unusual degree.

criminal lawhealthcare

In United States v. Mendez-Velarde, the defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and objected to the Presentence Investigation Report's denial of the safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), arguing he did not possess a firearm in connection with the offense even though a handgun was found in the lockbox containing the drugs; he also moved for a downward variance based on his youth, family circumstances, and minimal role. The court held an evidentiary hearing where the defendant testified he had not placed the gun in the box, did not know it would be there, never touched it, and received the box from a superior. The court sustained the safety-valve objection, applied a two-level reduction, granted the downward variance, and sentenced the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment, reasoning that the facts did not establish possession of the firearm in connection with the drug offense and that the defendant's short involvement, lack of criminal history, and other personal factors warranted a sentence below the advisory guidelines range.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involves a defendant's request for additional time to respond to the government's motion to reconsider a suppression order in a criminal proceeding. The court granted the defendant's motion for leave to file the response out of time, allowing filing by July 14, 2011. The decision was based on the defense counsel's representation of insufficient time due to other professional obligations despite diligent efforts, concluding that the extension serves the interests of justice without prejudicing parties or delaying the trial.

criminal lawprocedure