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

The case involves a criminal prosecution for sexual abuse of a minor on a military base. The defendant admitted to sexual activity but claimed he was asleep during the acts, raising a sexsomnia defense. The central dispute at trial concerned the defendant’s state of mind, specifically whether he was awake or asleep. Both sides presented expert witnesses. The defense expert, Dr. Kushida, opined that the victim’s account was consistent with sexsomnia, while the government’s expert, Dr. Bornemann, countered that the described actions were too complex to have occurred during sleep. During trial, Dr. Kushida also offered new opinions about the absence of malingering—suggesting the defendant was not faking symptoms for personal gain—which had not been disclosed before trial.The case was previously tried in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. At trial, after Dr. Kushida introduced the new malingering opinions, the government sought to have Dr. Bornemann rebut them. The defense objected to the adequacy and timing of the government’s disclosure regarding Dr. Bornemann’s new rebuttal opinions. The district court overruled the objection, allowed Dr. Bornemann’s testimony, and permitted a brief pre-cross-examination interview. The jury convicted the defendant on the counts related to sexual encounters in the girl’s bedroom.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the government was required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 to provide pretrial notice of the rebuttal opinions offered by Dr. Bornemann. The court held that the government’s duty to disclose rebuttal expert testimony is triggered only when the defense has timely disclosed the opinions being rebutted. Because the defense had not disclosed Dr. Kushida’s malingering opinions prior to trial, the government was not required to provide pretrial notice of Dr. Bornemann’s rebuttal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Crow" on Justia Law

A man drove his ten-year-old daughter from Oklahoma to Texas so she could participate in a gymnastics competition. While staying in a hotel together, he sexually abused her in the bathtub and later in bed. After the girl disclosed the abuse to her peers, three others—two of her half-sisters and her uncle, all minors at the time of their respective incidents—came forward with their own accounts of sexual abuse or inappropriate conduct by the same man. The evidence included testimony about prior incidents and hidden cameras used by the defendant to record his daughters.A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma charged the defendant with three crimes: transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, and 2241(c), and coercion and enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). After a jury trial, he was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to life imprisonment for each, to run concurrently. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for transportation of a minor and aggravated sexual abuse, arguing specifically that the government failed to prove that his “dominant purpose” in transporting his daughter was sexual activity and failed to establish his non-Indian status.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that, under § 2423(a), the government must prove only that the defendant transported the minor “with intent” that she engage in illegal sexual activity, not that this was his dominant purpose, and found the evidence sufficient. The court also held that unchallenged testimonial evidence from family members was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian. The convictions were affirmed. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

A company was the beneficiary of life insurance policies held in a trust formed by Daniel Carpenter. After the insurer paid proceeds to the trust, the beneficiary sought to recover the full amount and alleged that Carpenter hid assets through hundreds of shell companies. Carpenter was convicted of fraud, and the beneficiary obtained a judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, later registering the judgment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. That court entered judgment against several Carpenter entities, including a limited liability company that owned another company incorporated in Oklahoma. A receiver was authorized to preserve the assets of the debtor company.An entity called Phoenix Charitable Trust, apparently linked to Carpenter, entered the Oklahoma proceedings as an “interested party” through its counsel, who had represented Carpenter and related entities in other courts. Phoenix objected to several orders issued by the district court: an award of attorney fees and costs against Carpenter, an order authorizing the sale of the Oklahoma company’s insurance portfolio, and an order denying Phoenix’s motion to vacate a prior injunction against Carpenter and his entities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether Phoenix had standing to challenge these orders. The court found that Phoenix failed to demonstrate it was injured by the attorney fees order or the sale-of-assets order, as required for Article III standing. Regarding the injunction, the court concluded that Phoenix lacked prudential standing because it was asserting the rights of others rather than its own. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and did not reach the merits of Phoenix’s challenges. View "Universitas Education v. Phoenix Charitable Trust" on Justia Law

A White male employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections was required to attend a racial sensitivity training program that addressed the historical mistreatment of racial minorities. He found the training offensive, alleging that it created a discriminatory and hostile work environment against White employees. The employee claimed that the training included materials and recommendations—such as a glossary and videos—that generalized about the role of all White people in perpetuating racial injustice. He also alleged that, following the training, there was an ongoing commitment to similar programs, that employees were required to endorse the training’s ideology, that supervisors used the training in disciplinary decisions, that the training compromised workplace security, and that the Department failed to investigate his complaints.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the employee’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The district court found that, even accepting the allegations as true, the facts pleaded did not plausibly show a workplace that was sufficiently hostile under the legal standard required for a hostile work environment claim. The court declined to liberally construe the complaint because it was drafted by counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, assuming for argument’s sake that the complaint should be liberally construed. The appellate court held that the employee did not plausibly allege facts sufficient to show that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. The court also affirmed dismissal of the constructive discharge claim and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice, as the plaintiff failed to address the deficiencies after multiple opportunities to amend. The judgment was affirmed. View "Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant with a longstanding history of mental illness and violent behavior, who was indicted in federal court for mailing threatening communications to a former prosecutor. The defendant’s mental health history included diagnoses such as psychosis and bipolar disorder, and he had been incarcerated for nearly two decades. After the indictment, both parties questioned the defendant’s competence to stand trial due to his mental condition.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado first found the defendant incompetent and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment in an attempt to restore competency under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Medical staff at the hospital later reported that competency appeared to have been restored with medication, but after release from the hospital, the defendant ceased taking his prescribed drugs. Before a formal competency-restoration hearing could be held, both parties again concluded that the defendant was incompetent. After a hearing, the district court found the defendant incompetent and unrestorable for trial. The government then moved to hospitalize him for a dangerousness evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, which the defendant opposed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The appellate court affirmed the portion of the order hospitalizing the defendant for a precertification dangerousness evaluation under § 4246(a), holding that once a defendant is found incompetent and unrestorable, the district court may order temporary hospitalization for evaluation of dangerousness. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s order for a formal examination and report under § 4246(b), holding that only the court in the district of the evaluating hospital has authority for such an order. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Coad" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was discovered inside a stranger’s apartment in Oklahoma City. After being confronted by the resident, a physical altercation ensued and the defendant fled. The resident claimed that the defendant pulled a gun and fired at him as he was chased outside. Although no firearm was recovered, police found a recently fired shell casing at the scene. Video evidence and witness testimony corroborated the sequence of events. The defendant was subsequently arrested after a foot chase, and a grand jury indicted him for possessing ammunition as a felon.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under Rule 404(b), which the defendant opposed. The district court admitted the evidence over objection, provided a limiting instruction, and the jury found the defendant guilty. The presentence report calculated a guideline range of 63 to 78 months; however, the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 120 months, citing the seriousness and repetitive nature of the defendant’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the admission of the prior conviction was an abuse of discretion because knowledge was not at issue under the circumstances, but found the error harmless due to the strength of the evidence. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the sentence was substantively reasonable, and the argument that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment was foreclosed by binding precedent. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Dias" on Justia Law

Brandon and Rachel McCarthy operated an online business, Lone Goose Bakery, selling unprocessed poppy seeds coated in opium latex. These seeds, not processed to food-grade standards, retained opium alkaloids, including morphine, codeine, and thebaine. The McCarthys primarily sold to individual consumers and provided publications with guidance and recipes for brewing poppy-seed tea, which can contain significant amounts of these controlled substances and poses substantial health risks. At least one customer died from an overdose after consuming tea made from their seeds.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma returned a superseding indictment against the McCarthys, charging them with multiple counts, some for distributing or possessing controlled substances and others for distributing or possessing “precursors” for controlled substances. The defendants moved to dismiss all charges, arguing that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excludes poppy seeds, that any ambiguity should be resolved in their favor, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague if read to prohibit their conduct. The district court granted the motion, including as to counts based on the theory that the unprocessed seeds were precursors for manufacturing controlled substances.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that, while poppy seeds are excluded from the controlled substances schedule, the CSA prohibits the knowing distribution or possession of materials intended to be used to manufacture controlled substances. The court held that unprocessed poppy seeds coated with opium latex constitute a “material” that may be used to manufacture a controlled substance when intended for extraction of opiates. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the related charges and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Several individuals who own royalty interests in the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field brought a putative class action against two energy companies. Their claims are based on an alleged breach of a 2008 class action settlement agreement, which had resolved earlier disputes about underpayment of royalties by one of the companies. The 2008 settlement required limits on certain deductions from royalty payments and specified that its terms would bind successors, assigns, and related entities. In 2014, one defendant acquired assets from the other and continued making royalty payments. Plaintiffs allege the acquiring company violated the settlement by taking improper deductions after the acquisition.The plaintiffs initially sought to enforce the settlement in Kansas state court, but the District Court of Stevens County determined the judgment had become dormant and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling, and while the appeal was pending, they filed this federal class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but later denied class certification. The district court found that the proposed class was not ascertainable because identifying class members would require individualized title review and that other Rule 23 requirements were not satisfied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court clarified that, under its recent precedent, class ascertainability does not require administrative feasibility—only an objectively and clearly defined class. The court found the proposed class ascertainable, that common questions predominated, and that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23 requirements. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded with instructions to certify the putative class. View "Rider v. Oxy USA" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with producing child pornography and possessing material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. The charges centered on three videos found in her husband’s online storage account, showing him interacting with a six-year-old girl in a pool at a family gathering. The defendant was not visible in the videos, but a woman’s voice—alleged to be hers—was present. She denied it was her voice, but several witnesses identified it as hers. The government also introduced evidence that, years after the pool incident, the defendant and her husband had made videos in public places surreptitiously filming up women’s skirts. In these later videos, the defendant was visually and audibly identifiable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma admitted three of these “Peeping Tom” videos as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), finding them relevant and admissible to prove the defendant’s identity as the camera operator in the pool videos and to show the absence of mistake or accident. The court limited the number of such videos introduced and declined to further edit them, as the defendant did not request specific excision and the entire videos were relevant for the stated purposes. After trial, the defendant was convicted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the “other acts” evidence. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court acted within its discretion. The court found the later videos relevant, sufficiently similar, and admissible for the proper purposes of proving identity and absence of mistake or accident, thus affirming the conviction. The appellate court did not address other proposed grounds for admission, as it found the purposes relied upon by the district court adequate. View "United States v. Bycroft" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, as a member of the Osage Nation, was previously convicted in Oklahoma state courts of several offenses, all committed in areas recognized as Indian country. In 2013, she was convicted of driving under the influence in Washington County. She was subsequently convicted in Mayes County in 2016 for possessing methamphetamine and a firearm, and again in Tulsa County in 2016 for possession of controlled substances and paraphernalia, as well as impersonation. In each proceeding, she was represented by counsel. Later, she was indicted in federal court for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances after a DEA investigation, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma calculated her advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by including her three prior state convictions in her Criminal History Category. The defendant objected, arguing that the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her because she is Native American and the offenses occurred in Indian country. The district court overruled her objection, noting the convictions had not been vacated or reversed by any Oklahoma court and were not obtained in violation of her right to counsel. The district court ultimately sentenced her after applying a downward variance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in including the prior state convictions in the Criminal History calculation. The Tenth Circuit held that, under federal law and United States Sentencing Guidelines, prior state convictions must be counted unless they have been vacated, reversed, or were obtained in violation of the right to counsel. The court found no exception for convictions alleged to be void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, absent their invalidation by the convicting court. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law