United States v Ontiveros

Ontiveros appealed his sentence arguing his Colorado assault conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence for sentencing purposes under Circuit precedent. The panel affirmed holding the circuit precedent relied upon by Ontiveros was inconsistent with the reasoning in the United states supreme Court’s Castleman decision that intentional or knowing causation of bodily harm necessarily requires the use of physical force, Colorado’s 2nd degree assault statute requires intentional causation of serious bodily injury and thus necessarily requires the use of physical or violent force and the sentence here was properly enhanced.

Littlejohn v Royal

Littleton appealed the denial of his habeas petition in his death penalty case. The panel, with one judge concurring in judgment, affirmed. The majority held that Littlejohn’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed for lack of prejudice because diagnoses of attention deficit disorder or impulse control disorder are not quality mitigation evidence and offering the evidence would have allowed Oklahoma to introduce evidence of antisocial disorder and other aggravating evidence thus there is no likelihood offering that evidence would have changed the death sentence. It rejected Littlejohn’s cumulative erro argument because even assuming the alleged errors had moderate prejudicial effects, they do not call into question the compelling case put on by Oklahoma nor was there any synergistic effect to amplify the assumed prejudice. Tymkovich concurred in judgment arguing remand in an earlier appeal was unnecessary as evidence of organic brain damage is not categorically more compelling than other mental health evidence