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

Defendant Nathan Pehrson was convicted on charges of diverting hydromorphone, a synthetic opioid known as "Dilaudid," while working as a nurse in a surgical trauma unit in early 2018. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court erred in allowing expert witness Dr. Ryan Paulsen to testify that the drug test on Defendant’s hair indicated that he had most likely ingested hydromorphone, and in allowing Dr. Richard Cox, who was not qualified as an expert, to give opinion testimony regarding Defendant’s diversion of the drug from its intended use for patients. The Tenth Circuit did not find the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Dr. Paulsen and any error in allowing the opinion testimony of Dr. Cox was harmless. View "United States v. Pehrson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68; and Oklahoma state law, challenging an allegedly unconstitutional scheme to collect “court debts” from impoverished Oklahoma citizens. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“SACAC”) named numerous “Defendants,” which fell into three broad categories: (1) individual Oklahoma sheriffs, the Oklahoma Sheriff’s Association (“OSA”), and officials of Tulsa and Rodgers Counties (collectively, “Sheriffs”); (2) state court judges (collectively, “Judges”); and (3) Aberdeen Enterprises, II, Inc. and its principal officers (collectively, “Aberdeen”). Plaintiffs alleged Aberdeen, a debt-collection company, acting in concert with other Defendants, used actual or threatened incarceration to coerce indigent Oklahomans into paying court debts, without any inquiry into ability to pay. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, broadly holding that three independent doctrines prevented Plaintiffs from proceeding on any claim against any Defendant. Plaintiffs appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that none of the doctrines identified by the district court deprived federal courts of the ability to reach the merits of the claims listed in the complaint. To this, the Tenth Circuit agrees the district court erred in dismissing the SACAC. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Graff, et al. v. Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Eusebio DeVargas was indicted on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He moved ti dismiss his indictment, arguing that neither of his two previous felony convictions could have served as predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) because his civil rights were fully restored after he completed the sentences for each of those convictions. DeVargas also moved to suppress evidence that was seized at his residence at the time of his arrest, as well as post-arrest statements that he made to a law enforcement officer. After the district court denied both of his motions, DeVargas pleaded guilty to a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and, under the terms of his plea agreement, reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss and his motions to suppress. The Tenth Circuit rejected DeVargas’s arguments and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Devargas" on Justia Law

A district court revoked defendant-appellant Donald Booker’s supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Booker appealed, arguing the district court erroneously based his sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release on retribution. After review, the Tenth Circuit determined district courts could not modify or revoke a term of supervised release based on the need for retribution. Because the district court quoted from a 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor representing retribution, the district court erred. “But even assuming this error was plain, Mr. Booker has not shown that it affected his substantial rights because we conclude there is no reasonable probability that his sentence would have been shorter had the court not erred.” Accordinlgly, the Court affirmed Booker’s twenty-four-month sentence. View "United States v. Booker" on Justia Law

Defendant Dominic Hunt appealed his convictions on two charges of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The ammunition was used in two shootings in early 2019. Investigators found three spent cartridges at the scene of one shooting and one spent cartridge at the other. A firearms expert testified that all four cartridges were fired from the same (undiscovered) weapon. Defendant’s sole issue raised on appeal was that the expert testimony should not have been admitted at trial: the expert’s field of firearm toolmark examination was not scientifically valid, and that the district court failed to perform its gatekeeping role in examining the admissibility of expert testimony because it relied on prior judicial opinions rather than the most up-to-date empirical evidence when it denied his pretrial motion to exclude the testimony without conducting a hearing. The Tenth Circuit held only that the district court adequately performed its gatekeeping role and did not err in admitting the testimony in light of the material presented on the pretrial motion and the expert testimony at trial. View "United States v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Petitioner Brenda Evers Andrew, an Oklahoma state prisoner convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court’s denial of her habeas petition seeking a new trial or resentencing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Andrew was convicted of the 2001 shooting death of her husband Robert. A jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, two aggravating factors that warranted the death penalty: (1) Andrew committed the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration; and (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Andrew a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) on ten issues. Taking each in turn, but finding no reversible error in the denial of habeas relief, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the federal district court. View "Andrew v. White" on Justia Law

In 2019, Western Watersheds Project sued to challenge the issuance of permits that expired in 2018. The district court dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that decision: Western Watersheds Project’s claims were brought against expired permits that had already been renewed automatically by 43 U.S.C. § 1752(c)(2). And the timing of a new environmental analysis of the new permits was within the Secretary’s discretion under 43 U.S.C. § 1752(i). Western Watersheds Project, therefore, lacked Article III standing because its claims were not redressable. View "Western Watersheds Project v. Interior Board of Land Appeals, et al." on Justia Law

After the government charged defendant-appellant Steven O’Neil with violating the federal felon-in-possession statute, he moved to suppress eyewitness identification evidence and a gun seized from his backpack. The district court denied the motions. O’Neil appealed, arguing: (1) the identifications should have been excluded because they were unreliable; and (2) the district court erred in concluding the gun would have been inevitably discovered during an inventory search. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with O’Neil on both issues, and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. O'Neil" on Justia Law

After a drug-sniffing dog alerted to Defendant Neoal Hayes’ vehicle during a traffic stop, law enforcement officers uncovered 2,505 grams of methamphetamine and 10 grams of heroin inside a duffel bag located behind the driver’s seat. Inside a backpack, also located behind the driver’s seat, officers retrieved a small safe containing: more methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine; Xanax; marijuana; a digital scale; packing material; and a 45 caliber handgun with one round in the chamber and a magazine containing nine rounds. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and 60 months’ imprisonment on Count 2, to run consecutively. As part of his Rule 11 plea agreement, Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs and firearm. Defendant appeals, contending the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. In its order denying Defendant’s motion, the district court provided alternative bases for why the stop and search of Defendant’s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant acknowledges the stop of his vehicle was justified based on the officer’s suspicion that his driver’s license was suspended. But Defendant challenged all other aspects of the district court’s ruling: the facts known to the officer did not establish reasonable suspicion that he was transporting drugs, such that the officer’s stop and search of his vehicle could not be justified on that basis. Defendant also argued the officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop to pursue an investigation into drug trafficking that was unrelated to the original purpose for the stop. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hayes" on Justia Law

In December 2019, defendant-appellant Steven Anderson was stopped by police after a woman complained he was harassing her and an officer observed him walking in the street in violation of a city ordinance. Anderson provided the officers with false identifying information and was arrested for concealing his identity. During a search incident to arrest, law enforcement found a firearm and a crystal-like substance determined to be methamphetamine on his person. Following a failed motion to suppress, Anderson pled guilty to being a felon in possession. At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and sentenced Anderson to fifty-one months in prison. On appeal, Anderson challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the firearm was discovered in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He also argues the district court erroneously applied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), primarily because it relied on an uncorroborated police report not admitted into evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law