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

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages wild horse herds in southern Wyoming under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. This Act mandates the protection and management of wild horses on public lands. The land in question is a checkerboard pattern of alternating public and private ownership. Since 1979, BLM managed these herds with the consent of private landowners. However, in 2010, private landowners revoked their consent, making it difficult for BLM to maintain the herds. In 2022, BLM amended its Regional Management Plan (RMP) to change two Herd Management Areas (HMAs) to Herd Areas (HAs), reducing the wild horse population goal to zero in two areas and significantly reducing it in another.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming reviewed the case and ruled in favor of BLM, finding that the agency had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in amending the RMP. The court held that any challenge to BLM’s decision to remove horses was unripe and that BLM had complied with the relevant statutes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that BLM failed to consider whether its decision would achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, as required by the Wild Horse Act. The court held that BLM’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it did not base its decision on this statutory requirement. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to determine the appropriate remedy, considering the practical consequences of vacatur and the potential for BLM to substantiate its decision on remand. View "American Wild Horse Campaign v. Raby" on Justia Law

The case involves the appeal of Lev Aslan Dermen, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering offenses, and money laundering. The charges stem from a scheme orchestrated by Dermen and his co-conspirators to file false claims for federal biofuel incentives, resulting in over $500 million in fraudulent payouts. The scheme involved laundering the fraud proceeds through various channels, including domestic and foreign entities and accounts.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Utah conducted a seven-week trial, after which the jury convicted Dermen on all counts. Dermen was sentenced to forty years in prison and ordered to forfeit assets and pay a money judgment. Dermen raised several issues on appeal, including juror misconduct, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial, alleged Brady violations, improper expert testimony, insufficient evidence for some convictions, and errors in sentencing and forfeiture orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Dermen's appeal. The court rejected all of Dermen's arguments, affirming the lower court's decisions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of juror misconduct and the impact of COVID-19. It also held that the alleged Brady violations were not material, the expert testimony was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court upheld the sentencing and forfeiture orders, finding no error in the district court's application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and its admission of hearsay evidence in the forfeiture proceedings. View "United States v. Dermen" on Justia Law

Vivos Therapeutics, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Ortho-Tain, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit stemmed from communications made by Ortho-Tain’s CEO and attorney to Benco Dental Supply, alleging that Vivos misrepresented Ortho-Tain’s products as its own. Vivos’s amended complaint included claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, libel per se, slander per se, intentional interference with contractual relations, and a declaratory judgment that Vivos did not violate the Lanham Act.The District Court for the District of Colorado denied Ortho-Tain’s motion to dismiss, which argued that certain claims should be dismissed based on the Colorado litigation privilege. Ortho-Tain appealed the denial, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously held that it lacked jurisdiction over the denial of immunity for Neff’s communications due to disputed factual issues. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider whether the communications were made in good faith contemplation of litigation.On remand, the district court again denied Ortho-Tain’s motion to dismiss, stating that it would not make a factual determination on whether the communications were made in good faith at the pleading stage. Ortho-Tain appealed this decision, arguing that the district court failed to properly analyze the good faith of the communications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could not review the district court’s denial of immunity because it involved disputed factual issues. Without jurisdiction over the denial of immunity, the Tenth Circuit also declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining interlocutory rulings. View "Vivos Therapeutics. v. Ortho-Tain" on Justia Law

Robin Niceta, a former caseworker with the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services, was assigned to investigate allegations of child abuse against Paul Berryman. Niceta allegedly made false statements during the investigation and custody proceedings, which led to the removal of Berryman’s daughters from his custody for a year and a half. After the Berrymans regained custody, they sued Niceta under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming her conduct violated their procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Niceta’s motion to dismiss the claim, rejecting her assertions of qualified immunity and absolute testimonial immunity for statements made at a custody hearing. Niceta then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court that Niceta was not entitled to qualified immunity because she failed to adequately raise the defense. However, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court regarding absolute testimonial immunity. The court held that Niceta is entitled to absolute immunity for statements made during her testimony at the custody hearing but not for statements made outside of that hearing.The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether any of the Berrymans’ claims could survive without considering Niceta’s testimonial statements made at the custody hearing. View "Berryman v. Niceta" on Justia Law

Nancy Stark, as the legal guardian and mother of Jill Finley, an incapacitated person, filed a lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Finley, who suffered a hypoxic brain injury in 2007, was initially approved for long-term disability benefits by Reliance. However, in 2022, Reliance terminated her benefits, claiming recent testing did not support her total disability. Stark appealed, and Reliance reinstated the benefits in 2023. Stark then sued, seeking a surcharge for financial harm caused by the wrongful termination, claiming breach of fiduciary duty for not providing internal records, and contesting the deduction of social security payments from Finley's disability payments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Reliance's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Stark did not plausibly allege a claim for equitable relief under ERISA, nor did she demonstrate that Reliance's actions violated the terms of the insurance policy or breached fiduciary duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Stark was not entitled to attorney’s fees incurred during the administrative appeal under ERISA’s § 1132(a)(3) or § 1132(g). The court also found that Stark's claims regarding the SSD offset were time-barred and waived due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally, the court concluded that Stark did not allege any concrete harm resulting from Reliance's alleged failure to provide requested records during the administrative appeal. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss all of Stark's claims. View "Stark v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

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