Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Albert Bustillos, an independent journalist, was filming content for his YouTube channel outside the Navajo oil refinery in Artesia, New Mexico. He was approached by refinery security and later by officers from the Artesia Police Department, including Corporal David Bailey. Despite Bustillos asserting he was on public property and had not broken any laws, Bailey arrested him for failure to identify himself in violation of New Mexico law.Bustillos sued Bailey and the City of Artesia, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and New Mexico law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bailey was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, rejecting Bailey’s qualified immunity defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court found that Bailey lacked reasonable suspicion of a predicate crime, which is required to lawfully arrest someone for concealing identity. The court also found that Bustillos had met his burden to show that Bailey violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal relating to Bustillos’s state-law claims, as the defendants had failed to meet their burden to support pendent appellate jurisdiction. View "Bustillos v. City of Artesia" on Justia Law

Cirilo Olmedo-Martinez, an alien, was charged with removability by the Department of Homeland Security. He applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his family members. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application, finding that he failed to demonstrate such hardship. Olmedo-Martinez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and moved to remand the proceedings, presenting new evidence including his brother's successful withholding of removal due to ongoing familial violence in Mexico and the birth of his daughter. The BIA dismissed the appeal and declined to remand the case, concluding that Olmedo-Martinez failed to show how the new evidence would change the outcome of the IJ's decision.Olmedo-Martinez then filed a motion to reopen and remand the case based on additional new evidence: his son’s diagnosis with a complex medical condition and an educational impairment. The BIA denied the motion, holding that Olmedo-Martinez could not demonstrate that the condition was particularly serious or that his child could not continue treatment in his absence, and he failed to sufficiently address how his removal would affect his child’s educational hardship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA's denial of Olmedo-Martinez's motion to reopen. The court found that the BIA did not err in denying the motion to reopen, as Olmedo-Martinez failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirement of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship would be met in reopened proceedings. The court also found that the BIA properly applied the legal standard in its decision. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Olmedo-Martinez v. Garland" on Justia Law

A California-based psychologist, Dr. Rick Q. Wilson, was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for potential violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Wilson's medical, prescription, and billing records. Wilson challenged the subpoena on statutory, constitutional, and privacy grounds.The district court initially dismissed the United States' petition to enforce the subpoena, finding it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Fourth Amendment. However, upon reconsideration, the court granted the United States' motion to amend the petition and enforce a narrowed version of the subpoena.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the modified subpoena complied with HIPAA, was not unreasonably burdensome under the Fourth Amendment, and did not violate Wilson's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination due to the required-records exception. The court held that the subpoena was issued within the DEA's authority, was relevant to the DEA's investigation, and was not unreasonably broad or burdensome. The court also found that the records requested fell within the required-records exception to the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Vogt, a deputy court clerk, who was fired by Lisa Rodebush, the McIntosh County Court Clerk, for not publicly supporting Rodebush's reelection campaign. Vogt had worked with Rodebush for thirteen years and had supported her in the past. However, during the 2020 reelection campaign, Vogt's best friend, a former employee of the County Court Clerk’s Office, ran against Rodebush. Vogt decided to support Rodebush privately but not publicly to maintain her friendship with Rodebush's opponent. Despite this, Vogt campaigned for Rodebush and provided advice for her campaign. Rodebush, however, was not satisfied with Vogt's level of support and eventually fired her after winning the election. Vogt then filed a lawsuit alleging that Rodebush violated her First Amendment rights of free speech and political affiliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied Rodebush's motion for summary judgment, where she asserted qualified immunity. Rodebush appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that a public official cannot condition a subordinate’s employment on her political beliefs, affiliation, or non-affiliation, unless the government has a vital interest in doing so. The court held that Rodebush violated Vogt's First Amendment right to political affiliation by firing her for not publicly supporting her reelection campaign. The court also found that Vogt's right was clearly established at the time of the violation, thus defeating Rodebush's claim of qualified immunity. View "Vogt v. McIntosh County Board" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between two competitors in the construction equipment market, I Dig Texas, LLC, and Kerry Creager, along with Creager Services, LLC. I Dig Texas used copyrighted photographs of Creager's products, which were made in China, in its advertisements to emphasize its own products' American-made status. This led to claims under the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to I Dig Texas on Creager's federal claims and remanded all of the state-law claims to state court. Creager had claimed that the use of its photographs constituted copyright infringement and that the accompanying text misrepresented the origin of I Dig Texas's products.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Creager failed to present evidence of any profit from the use of its photographs, which was necessary to establish a claim for copyright infringement. The court also found that I Dig Texas's advertisements were not literally false under the Lanham Act. The advertisements were ambiguous as to whether a product is considered American-made when it is assembled in the United States but uses some foreign components. The court concluded that such a claim is not literally false because the claim itself is ambiguous. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand these claims to state court. View "I Dig Texas v. Creager" on Justia Law

The case involves God's Storehouse Topeka Church (GSH), which appealed a district court order denying its petition to quash a third-party summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to Kaw Valley Bank. The IRS sought bank records for accounts in GSH's name. GSH claimed the summons was invalid because the IRS failed to satisfy requirements applicable to church tax inquiries and examinations before issuing the summons. The district court denied GSH's petition, concluding that the provisions of § 7611, which govern church tax inquiries and examinations, do not apply to § 7609 third-party summonses.The case was initially referred to a magistrate judge who concluded that the third-party summons issued to Kaw Valley was not subject to the heightened requirements set out in § 7611. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It ruled that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Commissioner, who had approved the inquiry, was an appropriate high-level Treasury official for purposes of §7611(h)(7). However, it also concluded that the provisions of § 7611 do not apply to § 7609 third-party summonses.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the plain language of § 7611 makes clear it does not apply to § 7609 third-party summonses. Therefore, it was unnecessary to decide whether the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Commissioner is an appropriate high-level Treasury official. View "God's Storehouse Topeka Church v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves Bryar Johnson, who was seriously injured in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle. After the other drivers' insurance policies paid out their liability limits, Johnson sought additional uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from his parents' automobile policy with Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (MetLife). MetLife denied Johnson's claim under an exclusion in his parents' policy that denies coverage to resident-relative insureds injured while operating their own motor vehicle that is not insured by a motor vehicle insurance policy. Johnson had liability insurance on his motorcycle but had declined to purchase the offered UM coverage.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled in favor of MetLife. The court found that although Johnson was a resident relative and insured under his parents' policy, he had the opportunity to purchase his own UM coverage but declined it. The court interpreted Oklahoma law as requiring Johnson to either obtain liability insurance and UM coverage on his motorcycle policy or forego UM coverage under his parents' policy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that MetLife's exclusion does not defeat UM coverage for Johnson. Because Johnson carried liability insurance on his motorcycle, the court held that his motorcycle was "insured by a motor vehicle insurance policy." The court found that MetLife's exclusion did not require that resident-relative insureds carry UM coverage on their own motor vehicles to be eligible for UM benefits on other applicable policies. Therefore, MetLife owes Johnson UM coverage from his parents' policy. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In 2015, Jason Vincent Bradley was convicted on multiple counts related to firearm possession and drug trafficking. He was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on three counts and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the fourth count, followed by three years of supervised release. In 2021, Bradley filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the need to care for his minor children due to his mother's ill health and his own health conditions that increased his risk of serious illness from COVID-19.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Bradley's motion for compassionate release. The court acknowledged Bradley's claims of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release but found that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a sentence reduction. Bradley appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred by not considering his proffered extraordinary and compelling reasons for release as part of its § 3553(a) analysis and by not accounting for his post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Bradley had waived his first argument by not raising it in the lower court. Regarding his second argument, the court found that the district court had considered Bradley's post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation, and it had provided a rationale for its decision. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley's motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Bradley" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Kevin Alonso Zamora was discovered by law enforcement officers in Taylorsville, Utah, near a car that had been reported stolen. As officers approached, all suspects except Zamora entered the vehicle and drove off, while Zamora fled on foot. During his flight, Zamora ran through a residential neighborhood and a commercial area, eventually collapsing near a Taco Bell drive-thru. Officers found a gun tucked inside Zamora's pants, which had discharged during his flight, injuring him.Zamora was indicted and later pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which Zamora challenged as being erroneously applied. He argued that his armed flight did not recklessly create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Zamora's flight from law enforcement with a loaded gun, not carried in a holster, which discharged during his flight, constituted reckless behavior. The court also found that Zamora's actions created a serious risk of bodily injury to law enforcement. Furthermore, the court noted that Zamora ran directly in front of an occupied vehicle moments before his gun discharged, creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2. View "United States v. Zamora" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a copyright dispute between Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC and Timothy Sepi (Plaintiffs) and Netflix, Inc. and Royal Goode Productions, LLC (Defendants). Plaintiffs sued Defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that Defendants had used clips from eight videos filmed by Mr. Sepi without permission in the documentary series "Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness". The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that seven of the videos were works made for hire and thus Mr. Sepi did not own the copyrights. The court also found that the use of the eighth video constituted fair use and did not infringe on Mr. Sepi’s copyright.On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs waived their argument regarding the first seven videos as they presented a new theory not raised in the lower court. Accordingly, the appellate court upheld the district court's judgment regarding these videos. However, regarding the eighth video, the appellate court ruled that the district court erred in determining that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their fair use defense. The court concluded that the first factor of the fair use analysis favored the Plaintiffs instead of the Defendants, and that the Defendants failed to provide any evidence demonstrating the absence of a market impact, which is necessary to apply the fourth fair use factor. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment as to the first seven videos, reversed the judgment as to the eighth video, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Whyte Monkee Productions v. Netflix" on Justia Law