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

The defendant, Elijah Dewayne Hicks, shot and killed his cousin, Timothy Ray Buckley, in the middle of a residential street. Buckley, who had a history of violence when intoxicated, was drunk at the time. Hicks claimed self-defense, stating that Buckley had knocked out his girlfriend and charged at him. The government argued that Hicks intentionally murdered Buckley due to a personal grudge, highlighting that Hicks had non-lethal alternatives available.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma tried the case. The jury found Hicks guilty on all counts: second-degree murder, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and causing death in the course of a § 924(c) offense. Hicks was sentenced to concurrent 240-month sentences for the murder and causing death charges, plus a mandatory 120-month consecutive sentence for the firearm charge. Hicks appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its jury instructions, particularly by not instructing the jury that he had no legal duty to retreat or exhaust alternatives before acting in self-defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the lack of a duty to retreat or exhaust alternatives deprived the jury of critical legal guidance, thereby prejudicing Hicks' self-defense claim. The Tenth Circuit found that the jury instructions were inadequate and reversed the convictions, remanding the case for a new trial. The court emphasized that Hicks was entitled to an instruction clarifying that he had no legal duty to retreat or consider alternatives before using deadly force in self-defense. View "United States v. Hicks" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jose Pena, was accused of inducing his minor daughter to engage in sexual activity and recording it. Using a Facebook alias, "Jaime Peres," Pena initiated an online relationship with his daughter, Jane Doe, and later coerced her into recording sexual acts with him by threatening her with fabricated cartel violence. Jane reported the incidents to her school, leading to Pena's arrest and confession during a police interview.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Pena's motion to suppress his confession, finding it voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that law enforcement did not overbear Pena's will despite using various interrogation tactics. A jury subsequently convicted Pena of inducing a minor to engage in sexual activity and producing child pornography.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, agreeing that the confession was voluntary. The court found that law enforcement's conduct, while at times troubling, did not critically impair Pena's capacity for self-determination. The court also determined that any potential error in admitting the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of Pena's guilt, including DNA evidence, video recordings, and digital forensic evidence linking him to the alias "Jaime Peres."The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Pena's confession was voluntary and that the evidence against him was sufficient to uphold the conviction. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

Wanda Bowling entered into a contract with the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission to manage its information technology functions. When the contract ended, Bowling allegedly withheld login information for three online accounts, leading the Commission to sue for breach of contract. Bowling counterclaimed for libel and misclassification of her employment status. The district court dismissed the misclassification counterclaim and granted summary judgment to the Commission on all other claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Bowling's counterclaim for misclassification and denied her motion to amend it, citing untimeliness. The court also granted summary judgment to the Commission on its breach of contract claim, concluding that Bowling's login information constituted intellectual property and that she had breached the contract by not certifying the erasure of confidential information. The court awarded the Commission $956.67 in damages. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment on Bowling's libel counterclaim, citing a qualified privilege defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court's finding of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the Commission had adequately alleged damages exceeding $75,000. However, the appellate court found that the contract was ambiguous regarding whether the login information constituted intellectual property or other materials covered by the contract, and that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the damages. Therefore, it reversed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Bowling's motion to amend her counterclaim for misclassification, finding no abuse of discretion.On the libel counterclaim, the appellate court agreed that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on a qualified privilege without giving Bowling notice. However, it affirmed the summary judgment on the grounds that the Commission's statements were substantially true. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission v. Bowling" on Justia Law

Two boys from Grand Junction, Colorado, were sexually abused by Michael Tracy McFadden over several years. McFadden, who was distantly related to one boy (J.W.) and a close family friend to the other (K.W.), provided necessities and luxuries to the boys, ingratiating himself with their families. The boys frequently stayed at McFadden’s house, where he assaulted them during the night. McFadden also took the boys on interstate trucking trips, during which he continued the abuse.McFadden was initially convicted in Colorado state court on nineteen counts of child-sex abuse, but the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the charges due to a violation of his speedy-trial rights. Subsequently, a federal grand jury charged McFadden with five counts related to his sexual abuse of J.W. and K.W. across state lines. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado admitted a video recording of K.W.’s 2013 forensic interview under Rule 807, despite McFadden’s objections. The jury convicted McFadden on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent life sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed McFadden’s appeal, which argued that evidentiary errors and a mistake in his Guidelines calculation warranted a new trial and resentencing. The court found that the district court erred in admitting the 2013 forensic-interview video under Rule 807 but deemed the error harmless. The court also upheld the district court’s exclusion of an audio recording of K.W.’s 2018 interview and rejected McFadden’s claims of improper vouching by witnesses. Finally, the court affirmed the application of a two-level undue-influence enhancement to McFadden’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). The Tenth Circuit affirmed McFadden’s conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. McFadden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued multiple officers from the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and Grand Junction Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. The officers executed a search warrant for a stolen Sno-Cat at Plaintiff's property, which included a garage and an attached residence. Believing the Sno-Cat was in the garage, officers obtained a search warrant and returned with SWAT units. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they fired chemical munitions into the residence, causing significant property damage. The search revealed no humans, only a dog, and Plaintiff claimed over $50,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, granting qualified immunity to the defendants. The court relied on documents outside the complaint, including a search warrant, supporting affidavit, and an after-action report (AAR), despite Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which the district court also dismissed, again granting qualified immunity and considering the same external documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court erred by considering the AAR without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and allowing for discovery. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff plausibly alleged individual actions by each defendant and that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant by entering the residence, which could not house the Sno-Cat. The court also found that the officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by failing to knock and announce their presence and using excessive force without exigent circumstances. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cuervo v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

Omar Godinez, a minor at the time of his conviction, is serving a 32-years-to-life sentence in Colorado state prison for kidnapping and sexually assaulting two victims. After exhausting state appeals, he sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Graham v. Florida, which prohibits life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by minors without a meaningful opportunity for release based on maturity and rehabilitation.The state trial court rejected Godinez's interpretation of Graham, concluding that the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) allows the parole board to consider maturity and rehabilitation, even if not explicitly mandated. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence on different grounds, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Godinez then filed a habeas petition in the District of Colorado, which was denied. The district court agreed with the state trial court that the parole board could consider the Graham factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. They had previously certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court, which clarified that SOLSA permits consideration of maturity and requires consideration of rehabilitation. The Tenth Circuit denied Godinez's habeas petition, holding that he could not show that the Colorado courts unreasonably applied federal law. The court concluded that the parole board's ability to consider maturity and rehabilitation when Godinez becomes eligible for parole in 2034 meets the requirements set forth in Graham. The court also noted that any future failure by the parole board to adhere to constitutional requirements could be challenged at that time. View "Godinez v. Williams" on Justia Law

Arthur Aragon was indicted for unlawfully possessing an incendiary device, specifically a Molotov cocktail, which he threw onto his neighbor's property. This act was part of a series of harassments against his neighbors, including threats and property damage. Despite the Molotov cocktail causing a fireball, it did not result in significant damage or meet the threshold for felony arson under New Mexico law.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico applied a four-level sentencing enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court reasoned that Aragon's use of the Molotov cocktail had the potential to facilitate a felony offense, specifically arson, even though the actual damage did not meet the felony threshold. Aragon was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment, and he appealed the enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court misapplied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The enhancement requires either the use of a firearm to facilitate an actual felony offense or the possession of a firearm with the potential to facilitate a committed felony offense. The court clarified that the guideline does not apply to potential felony offenses that were not committed. Since Aragon did not commit felony arson, the enhancement was improperly applied. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Aragon" on Justia Law

Jeremy Harris filed a lawsuit against City Cycle Sales, Inc. (CCS) in Kansas state court, alleging negligence and a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) due to CCS's failure to repair the Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS) on his motorcycle. Harris was seriously injured when the ABS malfunctioned. He abandoned the KCPA claim before the case went to the jury, which resulted in a final judgment against him on all claims. Harris appealed the adverse judgment on the negligence claim but did not challenge the KCPA claim. After the appellate court reversed the negligence judgment and remanded for a new trial, Harris and CCS stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice. Harris then filed a new lawsuit in federal district court, again alleging negligence and KCPA violations, and won on both claims.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied CCS's motion to dismiss the KCPA claims, reasoning that the law-of-the-case doctrine and preclusion principles did not apply because there was no final judgment on the merits of the KCPA claims. The jury awarded Harris damages, finding CCS liable for both negligence and KCPA violations. CCS appealed, arguing that Harris was barred from raising the KCPA claim in federal court and that there was insufficient evidence to support the negligence claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment on the KCPA claim, holding that Harris was barred from raising the statutory claim in federal court due to his abandonment of the claim in the state trial and appellate courts. The court ruled that the federal district court was required to give full faith and credit to the Kansas proceedings, which had a preclusive effect on the KCPA claim. However, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the negligence claim, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that CCS's negligence caused Harris's injuries. View "Harris v. City Cycle Sales" on Justia Law

In 2016, Unitednet, Ltd., a UK company, entered into an agreement to purchase a fiber-optic telecommunications network from three foreign companies within the Tata Communications conglomerate. Steven Lucero, a New Mexico resident, allegedly conspired with three Tata companies to sabotage the deal so he could purchase the network through his New Mexico-based company, LatinGroup, LLC. After the deal fell apart, Unitednet and its director, Levi Russell, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico federal district court, asserting claims of tortious interference with a contract and related claims against Lucero, LatinGroup, and the Tata companies.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum for the litigation. The court found that foreign law applied to the claims and that the private and public interests favored dismissal. The court conditioned the dismissal on the defendants submitting to jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and waiving any statute-of-limitations defenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the United Kingdom was an adequate alternative forum and that foreign law governed the dispute. The court found that the district court had appropriately balanced the private and public interest factors, noting that the case had stronger ties to the United Kingdom, which had a greater interest in resolving the dispute. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for forum non conveniens. View "Unitednet v. Tata Communications America" on Justia Law

Julian Manzano was pulled over by Oklahoma City police on March 26, 2022, just twenty-five days after being released from a thirteen-year prison sentence. During the stop, officers smelled burnt marijuana and found a .45 caliber pistol and ammunition in his car. Manzano admitted ownership of the firearm. Due to a prior 2009 conviction for second-degree murder in Oklahoma, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and pled guilty.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Manzano, applying a higher base offense level based on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) which classified his prior second-degree murder conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Manzano objected, arguing that his prior conviction did not meet the criteria for a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. The district court disagreed and sentenced him to 27 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Oklahoma's second-degree murder statute, which includes homicides committed during the commission of any felony, does not categorically match the federal definition of "murder" under the Guidelines. The federal definition requires the underlying felony to be "dangerous," whereas Oklahoma law allows for potentially dangerous felonies to qualify. This broader scope means that Oklahoma second-degree murder criminalizes more conduct than the federal definition of "murder." Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing, finding that Manzano's prior conviction should not have been classified as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Manzano" on Justia Law