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

On August 3, 2020, the Kansas City Kansas Police Department responded to a drive-by shooting at the Butler family's home, associated with the Tasha Gang. The suspected shooter was Isaiah Shields of the rival BBUx2 Gang. Later that night, officers were fired upon by multiple shooters, injuring an ATF agent and a civilian. Officers suspected five individuals from the Tasha Gang, including Nadarius Barnes, were responsible for the retaliatory shooting.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas charged the five individuals with forcible assault of a federal officer and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The defendants moved to dismiss the firearm charge, arguing that the assault charge was not a crime of violence. The district court denied the motion, holding that the assault charge was a crime of violence. Barnes entered an unconditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 156 months' imprisonment, including an upward departure and variance from the guideline range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Barnes argued that his conviction should be vacated because the assault charge was not a crime of violence and challenged the reasonableness of his sentence. The Tenth Circuit held that Barnes's unconditional guilty plea waived his right to challenge the conviction on the grounds that the assault charge was not a crime of violence. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance, as it conducted a detailed assessment of the relevant sentencing factors. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Barnes's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

In April 2018, Le’Onsha Scott was severely injured in a car accident caused by Ellen Cahill, who admitted fault. Cahill was insured under two policies: her own Hartford policy and a Nationwide policy as a "resident relative" of her son, John Duggan. The Nationwide policy covered liability for vehicles listed in its declarations, which did not include Cahill's 2018 Hyundai Ioniq, the car she was driving during the accident. Nationwide denied coverage for the accident, leading Scott to seek indemnification for the balance of a $424,140.26 judgment awarded after arbitration.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of Nationwide, ruling that the policy's limitation to specified vehicles did not violate Colorado public policy. The court found that Colorado statutes and case law allowed insurers to exclude liability coverage based on whether a vehicle is specifically named in the policy. Scott's cross-motion for summary judgment, which argued that the policy's vehicle-based coverage limitation was void against Colorado public policy, was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the Nationwide policy's limitation to specified vehicles did not violate Colorado public policy. The court noted that Colorado's motor vehicle insurance statutes and case law support the practice of limiting liability coverage to vehicles explicitly named in the policy. The court also distinguished this case from Pacheco v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., which involved uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, a different context with person-oriented statutes. The appellate court denied Scott's request for appellate costs. View "Scott v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance" on Justia Law

G’Ante Butler was convicted of forcible assault of a federal officer and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence following a nine-day jury trial. The incident involved a retaliatory shooting at the home of a rival gang member, during which multiple shooters, including Butler, fired upon law enforcement officers and a civilian. Butler was found with a firearm and cell phone evidence linked him to the crime scene. He denied involvement, but co-defendant Chase Lewis testified against him, corroborated by substantial circumstantial evidence.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas admitted various pieces of evidence, including testimony from a neighbor and law enforcement officers. The jury found Butler guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 190 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Butler appealed, challenging the district court’s failure to give a limiting instruction on impeachment evidence, the admission of a neighbor’s testimony, and the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments. He also argued cumulative error and contended that his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated because § 111(b) is not a crime of violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court’s failure to give a limiting instruction was harmless error due to the substantial evidence supporting the conviction. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the neighbor’s testimony, as it was relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The prosecutor’s closing statements were not plainly erroneous, and the jury was properly instructed on the government’s burden of proof. The court also rejected the cumulative error argument, as only one error was identified. Finally, the court affirmed that § 111(b) is a crime of violence, consistent with its precedent in United States v. Kendall. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

Cody Byron Teerlink was convicted of making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm. He had previously pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony for driving under the influence in Utah and completed his probation successfully. Despite being eligible for a reduction of his felony to a misdemeanor under Utah law, he did not apply for it. In 2021, Teerlink attempted to purchase firearms on three occasions, falsely stating on ATF Form 4473 that he had not been convicted of a felony. He was able to purchase a rifle once due to a system glitch but was denied on the other two attempts.The United States District Court for the District of Utah directed the parties to agree on jury instructions. The parties jointly submitted an instruction defining "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which included language criticized by the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court. The jury convicted Teerlink on one count of making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm and acquitted him on the other counts. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Teerlink argued that the jury instruction lowered the government's burden of proof, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. However, the court held that Teerlink invited any alleged error by jointly submitting the instruction and failing to object at trial. The court emphasized that parties cannot propose jury instructions and later challenge them on appeal. The court also rejected Teerlink's argument that a footnote in the jury instructions preserved his right to plain-error review, stating that such a footnote cannot immunize a party from the invited-error doctrine. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Teerlink" on Justia Law

David Berryhill, Jr. was pulled over by Oklahoma Highway Patrol for a traffic violation. During the stop, a K-9 unit alerted to his vehicle, leading to a search that uncovered a significant amount of methamphetamine and cash. Berryhill admitted to transporting the drugs for payment. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Berryhill. He requested a mitigating-role adjustment, arguing he was merely a courier. The court denied this request, finding his role more significant based on the quantity of drugs and his involvement in the trafficking operation. Berryhill was sentenced to 168 months in prison.Berryhill appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing the district court applied the wrong legal standard by not comparing his role to other participants in the criminal activity. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged the district court's error in not conducting a relative-culpability analysis but concluded the error was not clear or obvious due to ambiguous language in prior case law. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Berryhill’s sentence, holding that while the district court erred, the error did not meet the plain-error standard’s requirement of being clear or obvious. View "United States v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Cedric Lofton, a seventeen-year-old juvenile, died while in the custody of the Juvenile Intake Assessment Center (JIAC) in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Lofton, experiencing a mental health crisis, was placed in a prone restraint by JIAC officers for over forty minutes, leading to his death from cardiac arrest. Marquan Teetz, representing Lofton's estate, filed a § 1983 action against the officers, alleging excessive force.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claims, finding disputes of material fact. Specifically, the court noted that surveillance footage, although lacking audio, could support Teetz's version of events that Lofton had stopped resisting, making the continued use of force potentially excessive.The officers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the district court's finding of a factual dispute was "blatantly contradicted" by the record and that the court failed to properly analyze whether the law clearly established that their use of force was unconstitutional.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the use of a prolonged prone restraint on a subdued suspect constitutes excessive force. The court emphasized that the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Teetz, showed that Lofton was no longer resisting at some point during the restraint. The court also held that it was clearly established law that applying pressure to a suspect's back while in a prone position after being subdued is unconstitutional due to the significant risk of asphyxiation and death. Thus, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Teetz v. Stepien" on Justia Law

A father was accused of sexually abusing and assaulting his 11-year-old daughter over the course of a single day. The daughter testified to three separate incidents: in the family’s toy room, the father touched her chest through her clothes and showed her a pornographic video; in the school room, he told her they would have vaginal sex that night, described the pain she would experience, touched her vagina through her clothes, and made her touch his exposed penis; later, while driving her to a store, he touched her again, showed more pornographic videos, and, after stopping on a dirt road, moved her onto his lap, sucked on her chest, touched her vagina, kissed her, and asked if she was sure about having sex.A jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma found the father guilty of abusive sexual contact with a minor under 12 and assault with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse. After the verdict, the district court entered a judgment of acquittal on the assault charge, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient because the father had said the sex would occur later that night, not immediately. The government moved for reconsideration, and the district court reinstated the conviction, concluding that a reasonable jury could have found both assault and the required intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed three issues: whether the district court plainly erred by not instructing the jury to agree on a specific incident of sexual contact, whether the district court could reinstate the assault conviction after acquittal, and whether sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction. The court held that the omission of a specific unanimity instruction did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, that the district court could correct its mistaken acquittal without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Roark" on Justia Law

Eric Coomer, Ph.D., the former Director of Product Strategy and Safety at Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against several defendants, including Make Your Life Epic, LLC, Reopen America, LLC, and Clayton Thomas Clark. Joseph Oltmann, a nonparty to the lawsuit, was subpoenaed to testify and produce documents. Oltmann initially appeared for his deposition but left without authorization and later boasted about his actions on his podcast, disparaging the magistrate judge and suggesting violence.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held Oltmann in civil contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena and court orders. The court imposed a $1,000 per day fine until Oltmann complied and ordered him to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Oltmann appealed the Contempt Order, arguing that he properly invoked the newsperson’s privilege and that his due process rights were violated because the district court did not hold a hearing before issuing the Contempt Order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s Contempt Order. The appellate court held that Oltmann waived his arguments by not raising them specifically in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Contempt Order without a second hearing, as the material facts were undisputed. The appellate court further imposed sanctions on Oltmann, ordering him to pay Coomer’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the amount. View "Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic" on Justia Law

Defendants Jerrold Chavarria and Jerry Romero were accused of kidnapping and murdering a woman in Eddy County, New Mexico. They were charged with the federal crime of kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The indictment claimed that the defendants used a motor vehicle, a Jeep, as an instrumentality of interstate commerce in committing the crime. However, the indictment did not provide details on how the kidnapping affected interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the superseding indictment, ruling that it lacked an adequate nexus to interstate commerce. The court found that the use of a motor vehicle alone, without more, was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that not all motor vehicles are per se instrumentalities of interstate commerce. It emphasized that for an object to be considered an instrumentality of interstate commerce, it must serve the end of commerce. The court found that the government’s indictment was insufficient because it did not allege how the use of the motor vehicle in this case affected interstate commerce. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the superseding indictment, concluding that the federal kidnapping statute did not apply in this instance due to the lack of a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. View "United States v. Chavarria" on Justia Law