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

A detainee, Kongchi Justin Thao, died by suicide while being temporarily held at a county jail facility in Oklahoma during a transfer to a federal facility in California. Upon arrival, Mr. Thao was placed in a holding pod for short-term inmates. After attempting to leave the pod, he was restrained, handcuffed, and, while being transported, was tased by an officer before being isolated in a shower cell (Cell 126) with no camera. Over the next hour and a half, Mr. Thao repeatedly cried out for help, expressed suicidal ideation, and asked to be killed. Officers told him to be quiet but did not intervene further. Mr. Thao was later found hanging in the cell and died as a result.The decedent’s estate, through his brother as special administrator, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority (GCCJA), alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to GCCJA on both claims. The district court found that the facility had not been deliberately indifferent, reasoning there was evidence of training for officers on suicide risks and inmate supervision, and that the GCCJA’s written use-of-force policy was not plainly unconstitutional.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment for GCCJA regarding the excessive force claim, holding that the written taser policy was facially constitutional and that liability could not attach to the county for an officer’s violation of that policy. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the deliberate indifference claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether officers had adequate training to detect suicide risks in inmates like Mr. Thao. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the inadequate medical care claim. View "Thao v. Grady County Criminal Justice Authority" on Justia Law

The defendant, Eric Honors, was accused of sexually assaulting his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, B.J., both in the sleeper cab of his semi-truck outside their Wichita, Kansas home and during a subsequent drive from Kansas to Texas. Throughout these events, Honors held B.J. captive, repeatedly assaulted her, and made various videos documenting the abuse. Three such videos were recovered by investigators, all recorded in Kansas; other videos described by B.J. that were made in Oklahoma and Texas were not recovered.Honors was indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on two counts: transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and production of child pornography. At trial, the jury convicted him on both counts. The district court sentenced Honors to a total of sixty years in prison and ten years of supervised release. It also imposed a special condition prohibiting Honors from contacting B.J. or her family, including his wife and four biological children, during supervised release. Initially, the district court declined to extend the no-contact order to his prison term, reasoning it lacked authority, but later reconvened and imposed the order during incarceration as a civil injunction.Honors appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, raising three issues: (1) whether the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment by omitting language limiting the offense to Kansas, (2) whether the district court had authority to impose the no-contact order during incarceration, and (3) whether there was sufficient justification for prohibiting contact with his wife and children during supervised release. The Tenth Circuit held that any error regarding the jury instructions was not plain, affirmed the conviction on Count 2, vacated the custodial no-contact order in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction, and vacated the supervised release condition prohibiting contact with his wife and biological children, finding no compelling justification. View "United States v. Honors" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting electoral transparency operates a website that republishes voter registration data collected from state agencies. The group obtained New Mexico’s voter data through a third party and published it online, including information such as names, addresses, party affiliation, and voting history. After the website highlighted discrepancies in the state’s voter rolls, New Mexico’s Secretary of State publicly questioned the group’s motives and the lawfulness of its actions. The Secretary referred the group to the Attorney General for criminal investigation under state statutes that restrict the use and sharing of voter data. The group’s subsequent requests for updated voter data were denied.After the state’s refusal, the organization filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that New Mexico’s restrictions were preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing prosecution, which was later stayed by the Tenth Circuit. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that the NVRA preempted New Mexico’s restrictions and enjoined criminal prosecution. The court rejected most of the group’s remaining constitutional claims but, following a bench trial, held that the state engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing further data requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the NVRA preempts New Mexico’s restrictions on the use and sharing of voter data, holding that state laws that prevent broad public disclosure of voter data conflict with the NVRA’s requirements. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the First Amendment claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Voter Reference Foundation v. Torrez" on Justia Law

In 2003, the defendant was convicted by a jury of armed bank robbery in federal court. At sentencing, the government sought a mandatory life sentence under the federal “three strikes” law, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), which requires a life sentence for certain repeat offenders convicted of “serious violent felonies.” The government identified five prior convictions it argued qualified as “serious violent felonies.” The district court imposed a life sentence, finding the defendant had three qualifying strikes, but did not specify which prior convictions or which statutory definitions it relied upon.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The defendant’s first motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and that denial was affirmed on appeal. In 2020, the Tenth Circuit authorized the defendant to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, based on recent Supreme Court decisions finding similar statutory “residual clauses” unconstitutionally vague. The defendant argued that his life sentence was imposed under the residual clause of § 3559(c), which he claimed was unconstitutional.Reviewing the district court’s denial of relief de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause to enhance his sentence. The court found that, at the time of sentencing, the legal environment permitted the use of a circumstance-specific approach, allowing the defendant’s California robbery conviction to qualify as a strike under the enumerated clause. As a result, the defendant did not meet the burden required for relief under § 2255. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A man was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor that occurred in a home on the Choctaw Nation reservation in Oklahoma. The victim was a six-year-old boy, and the defendant, who had recently moved in with his stepdaughter, was alleged to have committed the offense within two days of his arrival. The prosecution charged the defendant under federal law, which required proof that the victim was an Indian and the defendant was a non-Indian.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government presented testimony from the defendant’s stepdaughter and three law enforcement officers, as well as driver’s license records, to establish that the defendant was not an Indian. The stepdaughter testified she did not know of any tribal membership or Indian identity for the defendant. Law enforcement witnesses stated the defendant did not identify as Native American and that inquiries with five major Oklahoma tribes yielded no information about his tribal status. The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a non-Indian. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The court held that the government failed to meet its burden, finding the evidence presented was too speculative and insufficient to establish the defendant’s non-Indian status. The Tenth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Hebert" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully several decades ago. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging that he was inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act due to his illegal entry. The petitioner admitted the allegations and sought cancellation of removal, arguing that he met the statutory requirements, including continuous residence and good moral character for the preceding ten years. He also requested voluntary departure as an alternative form of relief.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application for cancellation of removal, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated good moral character for the required ten-year period. The IJ acknowledged positive evidence regarding the petitioner’s family and work history but emphasized his history of alcohol abuse and criminal conduct, specifically noting a 2017 DUI conviction that was his fourth such offense, with the previous three occurring in 1995 and 1996. The IJ concluded that the 2017 conviction was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of recidivist behavior. The IJ granted voluntary departure. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ that the 2017 DUI conviction reflected recidivism and outweighed positive equities. The BIA also rejected the petitioner’s due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision de novo, focusing on whether the BIA improperly considered DUI convictions outside the ten-year statutory period for good moral character. The court held that the BIA properly considered the recidivist nature of the petitioner’s 2017 DUI conviction, even though the earlier convictions occurred outside the statutory period, because recidivism aggravates the seriousness of the most recent offense. The court denied the petition for review. View "Luna-Corona v. Bondi" on Justia Law

This case involves a class action dispute over late payments of oil proceeds to royalty and working interest owners in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, an Oklahoma landowner with royalty interests in three oil wells, alleged that Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. failed to pay statutory interest on late payments as required by Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA). The PRSA mandates that first purchasers of oil must pay proceeds within strict timeframes and include 12 percent interest on any late payments. The class was defined to include all owners who received late payments from Sunoco without the required interest.After Sunoco removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the court certified the class in 2019, finding common questions predominated, including whether Sunoco owed interest on untimely payments and whether a demand was required. The district court granted partial summary judgment on liability for the PRSA claim, and after a bench trial, awarded the class over $103 million in actual damages (including prejudgment interest) and $75 million in punitive damages. Sunoco appealed, challenging class certification, standing for certain class members, the calculation of prejudgment interest, and the punitive damages award. The Tenth Circuit previously remanded for clarification on damages allocation for unidentified owners, which the district court addressed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on class certification, ascertainability, standing, and the award of actual damages including prejudgment interest. The court held that the PRSA requires automatic payment of statutory interest on late payments, and that prejudgment interest should be compounded until paid. However, the Tenth Circuit vacated the punitive damages award, holding that punitive damages are not available for breach of contract claims under Oklahoma law when the only claim proven was a PRSA violation. The case was remanded for amendment of the judgment consistent with this opinion. View "Cline v. Sunoco" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, C&M Resources, LLC and Winter Oil, LLC, acting on behalf of a putative class of royalty owners, alleged that Extraction Oil and Gas, Inc. underpaid royalties owed under oil and natural gas production agreements. This case is the third attempt by the plaintiffs to pursue these claims, all arising from the same set of facts. In the two prior lawsuits filed in Colorado state court, the trial courts dismissed the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, as required by statute. The plaintiffs did not appeal those dismissals.In the present case, originally filed in state court in 2019, proceedings were stayed pending the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Antero Resources Corp. v. Airport Land Partners, Ltd. After the stay was lifted in 2023 and discovery commenced, Extraction determined that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million and removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that removal was untimely and that Extraction had waived its right to remove by participating in state court litigation. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the remand motion, finding that the removal was timely based on information obtained during discovery and that the bankruptcy proof of claim and other documents from prior cases did not trigger the removal clock.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the district court properly denied remand and correctly applied collateral estoppel, precluding the plaintiffs from relitigating the exhaustion requirement. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of Extraction, finding no error in the lower court’s rulings. View "C&M Resources v. Extraction Oil and Gas" on Justia Law

Over a fourteen-month period, the defendant and his wife engaged in a scheme to purchase seven high-end used vehicles from Kansas dealerships, financing the purchases with bank loans obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations on loan applications. After acquiring the vehicles, they altered title documents to remove the banks’ liens, enabling them to obtain false clear titles. These clear titles were then used to either sell the vehicles or secure title loans for cash. The defendant made few or no payments on the original car loans, and the fraudulent activity involved both Kansas and Georgia vehicle registrations.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially indicted both the defendant and his wife on seventeen counts, including conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The court severed the wife’s case after she agreed to testify against the defendant in exchange for dismissal of her charges, though she ultimately did not testify. At trial, the government dismissed one count and renumbered the remaining charges. The jury convicted the defendant on all sixteen counts, and the district court imposed concurrent forty-six-month sentences. After sentencing, the government dismissed all charges against the wife.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for seven of the defendant’s convictions. The court reversed the bank fraud conviction on Count 2, finding no evidence that the defendant aided or abetted his wife’s fraudulent loan. It also reversed the wire fraud conviction on Count 9 due to insufficient proof of the interstate commerce element. However, the court affirmed the money laundering convictions on Counts 12 through 16, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the defendant’s transactions were designed, at least in part, to conceal or disguise the proceeds of bank fraud. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

Three trade associations representing state-chartered banks challenged Colorado’s decision to opt out of a federal law, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDA), which sets national standards for interest rates that state banks may charge. In 2023, Colorado exercised its opt-out right under DIDA and announced it would enforce its own interest-rate caps on loans made to Colorado borrowers, including those made by out-of-state banks. The trade associations argued that Colorado’s opt-out should only apply to loans made by banks physically located in Colorado, not to loans made by out-of-state banks to Colorado residents.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado agreed with the trade associations. It granted a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado officials from enforcing the state’s interest-rate caps against out-of-state banks making loans to Colorado borrowers. The district court found that the plaintiffs had a viable cause of action under Ex parte Young, were likely to succeed on the merits, and would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. The court also determined that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the phrase “loans made in such State” in DIDA’s opt-out provision refers to loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt-out state. Therefore, Colorado’s opt-out applies to loans made by out-of-state banks to Colorado borrowers, and DIDA no longer preempts Colorado’s interest-rate caps for those loans. The Tenth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, finding that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser" on Justia Law