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

This case involves the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue nationwide permits under section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act. These permits authorized activities involving discharge of dredged or fill material in U.S. waters and wetlands. TransCanada Corporation proposed to rely on the nationwide permit to build an oil pipeline, the Gulf Coast Pipeline, running approximately 485 miles and cross over 2,000 waterways. The Corps issued letters verifying that Nationwide Permit 12 would cover the proposed construction. Shortly thereafter, TransCanada began constructing the pipeline, which was completed. Three environmental groups (Sierra Club, Inc.; Clean Energy Future Oklahoma; and East Texas Sub Regional Planning Commission) challenged the validity of the nationwide permit and verification letters. The district court rejected these challenges and entered judgment for the defendants. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Sierra Club v. Bostick" on Justia Law

Medtronic, Inc. produced "Infuse," a device that stimulates bone growth to repair damaged or diseased vertebrae. When it approved the device for sale, the FDA required the company to include a warning label instructing that Infuse should "be implanted via an anterior" surgical approach. Patricia Caplinger brought a state law tort suit against Medtronic, alleging that Medtronic promoted Infuse for use in a posterior surgical approach, which was considered an off-label" use. Caplinger alleged that Medtronic’s conduct exposed the company to liability under a variety of state tort theories. But the district court held all of these state law claims either insufficiently pleaded or preempted. Agreeing with the district court's conclusion that Caplinger's state law claims were insufficiently pleaded or preempted, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Caplinger v. Medtronic" on Justia Law

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conveyed to a strip of land to a consortium of local governments a strip of land for the construction of a parkway. The decision was challenged on various environmental grounds by several parties, including appellants WildEarth Guardians, Rocky Mountain Wild, the Town of Superior, and the City of Golden. The district court affirmed the Service’s actions, and Appellants appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Appellants asserted that the Service violated the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Greyfield Capital was a defunct Canadian company. Two "con-men" found a signature stamp belonging to the company's former president, and used it as an officially-sanctioned "seal" to appoint themselves corporate officers, issue millions of unregistered shares in their names. The men then took the unregistered, issued shares to create a penny stock "pump-and-dump" scheme. Regulators began looking for those who had helped facilitate the sale of Greyfield's unregistered shares. Regulators were led to petitioners ACAP and Gary Hume. ACAP was a penny stock brokerage firm in Salt Lake City, and Gary Hume was its head trader and compliance manager. Petitioners did not dispute their liability stemming from the Greyfield scheme, rather, they disputed the sanctions they received. FINRA decided to fine ACAP $100,000 and Mr. Hume $25,000, and to suspend Hume from the securities industry for six months. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reviewed and sustained these sanctions. ACAP and Hume then petitioned the Tenth Circuit to appeal the SEC's decision. After review, the Tenth Circuit could not "see how [it] might overturn the agency's decision." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the SEC's decision. View "ACAP Financial v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on an environmental challenge to a federal agency's decision to grant inspection services for the slaughter and processing of horses and other equines at three slaughterhouses. The district court affirmed the agency's grants of inspection. Plaintiffs, various organizations and individuals opposed to horse slaughter, appealed. One slaughterhouse subsequently withdrew its application for inspection; a second slaughterhouse surrendered its grant of equine inspection in order to obtain a grant of inspection for cattle slaughter, and the third slaughterhouse failed to successfully challenge a state permitting decision to allow only non-equine slaughter at the facility. Moreover, the Tenth Circuit found that the then-current congressional appropriations act prohibited funding for equine slaughter inspections. The Tenth Circuit therefore dismissed this appeal and vacated the district court's decision for mootness. View "Front Range Equine v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Petitioner Benjamin Rodas-Orellana entered the United States without inspection to escape gang recruitment in El Salvador. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeal's (BIA) denied petitioner's application because he failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group. The proposed group, "Salvadorans who resisted gang recruitment" lacked "social visibility" and therefore did not constitute a "particular social group." After the BIA issued its final order in this case, it issued decisions in two other cases that modified the social visibility requirement to be one of "social distinction." In light of these decisions, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the BIA denied. In his petition to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, petitioner contested both the final order of removal by the BIA and the Board's denial of his motion to reconsider. Finding no reversible error after review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA. View "Rodas-Orellana v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to remove petitioner Gustavo Mena-Flores from the United States on the ground that he was in the country illegally. Petitioner conceded removability, but applied to adjust his status to permanent residency based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The immigration judge eventually denied the request, stating that petitioner was ineligible for permanent residency because of a “reasonable belief” that he had participated in drug trafficking. On appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding that the immigration judge had sufficient evidence to find a reason to believe that petitioner had participated in drug trafficking. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit for review the Board’s denial of his request for adjustment in status. While the petition was pending, the Board denied petitioner's subsequent motions to reopen the case and reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. Petitioner then filed petitions seeking review of these denials. After review, the Tenth Circuit denied petitioner's petitions, finding no reversible error in the Board's decisions. View "Mena-Flores v. Holder" on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals before the Tenth Circuit in this case shared a common issue, a matter of first impression: whether an untimely 1040 Form, filed after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has assessed the tax liability, is a tax return for purposes of the exceptions to discharge in section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code. Edson and Liana Mallo did not file timely federal income tax returns for 2000 and 2001. As a result, the IRS issued statutory notices of deficiency. The Mallos did not challenge those determinations. The IRS began collection efforts in 2006. In 2007, the Mallos filed a joint Form 1040 for tax year 2000 and another joint Form 1040 for tax year 2001. Based on this information, the IRS assessed additional joint tax liability against them. In 2010, the Mallos filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for adjustment of debts with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. Their case was converted to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 in early 2011. After the bankruptcy court issued a general order discharging the Mallos’ debts, the Mallos filed an adversary proceeding against the IRS, seeking a determination that their income tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001 had been discharged. The IRS answered, denying the debts had been discharged. The parties agreed there were no issues of material fact in dispute and filed cross motions for summary judgment on the legal question whether the Mallos’ tax debt was excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. In another case, Peter Martin did not file timely returns for tax years 2000 and 2001. The IRS issued statutory notices of deficiency, which Mr. Martin did not challenge. In 2004, the IRS began collection efforts. In May 2005, Mr. Martin filed a Form 1040 for 2000 and a Form 1040 for 2001. Based on his submissions, the IRS partially abated Mr. Martin’s 2000 and 2001 tax liabilities. The legal question was the same in Mr. Martin’s bankruptcy, but he obtained a more favorable result. Mr. Martin filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and received a general discharge order. Like the Mallos, Mr. Martin then filed an adversary proceeding against the IRS, seeking a determination that his 2000 and 2001 tax debts had been discharged. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, making substantially the same arguments as advanced in the Mallos’ case. Contrary to the decision in the Mallos’ bankruptcy proceeding, the judge in Mr. Martin’s case determined the tardy Form 1040s were tax returns and therefore Mr. Martin’s tax debt was not excepted from the order of discharge. The IRS appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the untimely forms were not tax returns under the statute, and the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions excluding the debtors’ tax liability from the general discharge orders of the bankruptcy courts. View "Mallo v. IRS" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, challenging the Utah Department of Transportation's requirement that before granting a parade permit on a Utah state highway, an applicant must obtain liability insurance and sign an indemnification form. The groups alleged this requirement violated their constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the permit requirements are facially invalid. Officials from the Utah Department of Transportation appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "iMatter Utah v. Njord" on Justia Law

Municipalities City of Spencer and the Town of Forest Park, and Blaze’s Tribute Equine Rescue, acting under a search warrant, seized 44 abused and neglected horses from plaintiff-appellant Ann Campbell’s properties. After a forfeiture hearing, a state district court in Oklahoma issued an order granting Spencer and Forest Park’s joint forfeiture petition. Campbell later sued the municipalities (and Blaze) in federal court under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The district court dismissed Campbell’s complaint, applying both claim and issue preclusion to prevent relitigation of matters common to the state court forfeiture proceeding. Campbell appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly dismissed Campbell’s 1983 claims: because Campbell could have raised her constitutional claims in the forfeiture proceeding but did not do so, and because the Court's allowing her to raise these claims in this appeal would impair the Municipalities’ rights established in that proceeding, the Court held that the district court properly concluded that claim preclusion disallowed Campbell from pursuing her constitutional claims. View "Campbell v. City of Spencer" on Justia Law