United States v. Casanova
20-2159
| 10th Cir. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- In 2016 ATF conducted a 120-day "surge" in Albuquerque’s high‑crime International District using confidential informants (CIs) to buy guns and drugs. Transactions were recorded; arrests were made after the operation.
- A CI arranged buys from Yusef Casanova: sale of a loaded sawed‑off rifle for $100 and about one ounce of methamphetamine (weighed slightly under an ounce) for $600; Casanova negotiated to make up the shortfall later.
- Casanova was indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of an unregistered sawed‑off rifle; he defended at trial on entrapment and testified, but was convicted on all counts.
- Pretrial he pursued discovery and moved to dismiss based on race‑based selective enforcement; the district court denied the motion and granted only discovery. After trial the government identified Casanova’s supplier (John Bowker).
- Casanova’s trial counsel (Brian Pori) had concurrently represented Bowker for a period; after conviction Casanova moved for a new trial alleging conflict and ineffective assistance. The district court held evidentiary hearings, denied a new trial, and later sentenced Casanova to 120 months (denying a 2‑level acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction).
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed: (1) no showing of discriminatory purpose for selective enforcement; (2) no actual conflict and no objectively unreasonable performance by counsel; (3) denial of §3E1.1 reduction was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selective enforcement (race‑based) | Casanova: ATF targeted a minority neighborhood, CI selection and local arrest pattern show discriminatory purpose/effect; statistics show disproportionate African‑American arrests | Gov't: Operation targeted high‑crime International District at local agencies' request; statistics are geographically overbroad and do not show decisionmakers acted from racial motive | Affirmed denial; plaintiff failed to show discriminatory purpose; statistics and evidence insufficient |
| Ineffective assistance — conflict of interest (counsel also represented supplier) | Casanova: concurrent representation of Bowker created an actual conflict that impaired defense (foreclosed calling Bowker or cooperating) | Gov't: No actual conflict; counsel and client testified Bowker’s role was disclosed only shortly before trial; no proof counsel acted to the detriment of Casanova | No actual conflict; district court’s credibility findings not clearly erroneous; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance — trial strategy (selective‑enforcement & entrapment) | Casanova: counsel pursued weak/biased selective‑enforcement claim and an unlikely entrapment defense, constituting unreasonable performance | Counsel: informed strategic choices—believed claims had merit, client refused pleas, choices within wide range of reasonable professional assistance | Counsel’s performance not objectively unreasonable under Strickland; no new trial warranted |
| Acceptance‑of‑responsibility (§3E1.1) | Casanova: admitted factual guilt at trial and engaged in treatment; entrapment defense does not deny conduct so qualifies for 2‑level reduction | Gov't: Pretrial and post‑offense conduct contradict acceptance—no withdrawal, no voluntary cooperation, delayed ID of supplier | Denial affirmed; district court did not clearly err given defendant’s conduct before trial and arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alcaraz‑Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (elements and standard for selective‑enforcement/selection claims)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective‑prosecution is independent constitutional claim requiring forbidden motive)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (statistical disparities rarely alone prove discriminatory purpose)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (discriminatory purpose requires selection at least in part because of adverse effects on identifiable group)
- Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (statistical patterns must be stark to infer discriminatory purpose)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (actual conflict requires showing counsel’s performance was affected)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Garcia, 182 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 1999) (entrapment defense does not automatically foreclose acceptance‑of‑responsibility credit)
- United States v. Collins, 511 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for §3E1.1 factual determinations)