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

The issue central to this appeal involves the Northern San Juan Basin Coal Bed Methane project (Project) which was approved by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Project contemplates the construction of numerous gas wells within the San Juan National Forest and on other federal lands. San Juan Citizens Alliance (SJCA) and four other environmental advocacy groups filed suit in district court in Colorado for alleged violations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The suit contends that the 2007 record of decision approving the Project was unlawful. Several companies holding valid leases in the area and interested in drilling for gas were permitted to intervene. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. SJCA argued on appeal that the Project violated the NFMA because it is inconsistent with provisions of the San Juan National Forest Plan protecting old-growth ponderosa pine forests, wildlife habitat and riparian areas. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated a portion of the district court judgment pertaining to the NFMA claims that challenged approval of the Project. The Court dismissed those claims without prejudice. Additionally, the Court affirmed the district court's order regarding the NEPA. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

Daniel Cook appealed a district court's order that awarded fees and costs to his opponents Wells Fargo Bank and Scott and Pamela Garrett. The case stemmed from a 2003 lawsuit initiated by the Garretts as trustees of the Scott and Pamela Garrett Family Trust. The Trust was a shareholder in Hydroscope Group, Inc. and sued Mr. Cook for actions he took as an officer and director of HGI and its subsidiaries. A state district court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo and the Garretts on its claims against HGI. Mr. Cook filed several post-judgment motions, but before they could be heard, he appealed the state district court's decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. That court dismissed his appeal and remanded the case to the district court for disposition of the outstanding motions. Meanwhile, Mr. Cook filed a complaint against the Garretts and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo replied with an application for an injunction to enjoin Mr. Cook from filing further pleadings. The court eventually enjoined Mr. Cook from filing anything else because he had "engaged in a pattern of litigation activity that [was] abusive and vexatious such that his access to [the Court] should be restricted." Mr. Cook subsequently filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court. He sought to remove all the cases pending before the state district court, arguing that the judge presiding over them was racially biased against him. The federal district court found that removal was not objectively reasonable. Accordingly, the district court awarded fees and costs to the Garretts and Wells Fargo. Upon review of the lengthy and complicated procedural history of this case and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs to the Garretts and Wells Fargo. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Plaintiff Donna Butterick appealed a district court order that affirmed the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed reversible error in denying her application because he failed to follow the Commission's own procedure in examining and admitting testimony of the medical expert that testified at her hearing. Upon review of the hearing record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the alleged procedural errors at Plaintiff's hearing were "harmless." Because Plaintiff failed to show any prejudice, the Court affirmed the ALJ's decision to deny Plaintiff disability benefits.

Defendant Catherine Senninger was convicted on six counts of mail fraud and one count of making a false claim against the Government. She was acquitted on several other counts, including conspiracy and additional mail fraud counts. At trial, the Government presented evidence that Defendant, through her involvement with Olympia Financial and Tax Services, participated in a scheme to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and the Colorado Department of Revenue by preparing false tax returns. Defendant was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment, which was an upward departure from the advisory guidelines range. Defendant challenged her sentence and subsequent restitution order. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court "properly rejected" Defendant's arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Plaintiff Melissa Qualls appealed a district Court's order that affirmed the Social Security Administration's decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleged she became disabled in 2004. Her "date last insured" was December 31, 2008, "thus she had the burden of proving that she was totally disabled on that date or before." Though Plaintiff suffered from multiple sclerosis, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that she was not disabled because "she could make a successful adjustment to other light and sedentary work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy." On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to perform a proper credibility determination prior to rendering his judgment. Upon review of the Administration's record, the Tenth Circuit found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the the law was properly applied. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision to deny Plaintiff further insurance benefits.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with establishing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for various air pollutants. In this case, the Tenth Circuit consolidated several petitions that challenged the EPA's inclusion of portions of Box Elder County, Utah in a "nonattainment" area to the NAAQS for fine particulate matter. The EPA moved to dismiss the petitions or to transfer the petitions to the DC Circuit Court, arguing that the Clean Air Act's judicial review provision designated the DC Circuit as the proper forum. Upon review of the briefs submitted in this matter and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit transferred the petitions to the DC Circuit Court.

The issues central to this case are whether donning doffing poultry processing workers’ personal protective equipment is "changing clothes" under 29 U.S.C. 204 and whether a turkey processing plant is a “food and beverage industry” under Colorado law. Plaintiffs/Appellants Clara Salazar and Juanita Ybarra brought suit on behalf of hourly production employees at Defendant/Appellee Butterball, LLC’s Colorado turkey processing plant. Plaintiffs claimed that Butterball’s failure to compensate them for the time spent changing in and out of their personal protective equipment violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The district court entered summary judgment in Butterball’s favor, holding that the donning and doffing time was excluded and that the Colorado Wage Order did not apply to Butterball. Upon consideration of the submitted briefs and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Court found that donning and doffing time is not "hours worked" as defined by FLSA. Furthermore, Butterball is a reseller, and the Colorado regulation applied only to employers "that sell food directly to the consuming public." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions.

Plaintiff Laurie Harper appealed a district court's order that affirmed the denial of her disability benefits. Plaintiff alleged her disability was based on fibromyalgia and depression. The Social Security Administration denied her applications initially and on reconsideration. The Administrative Law Judge determined that she was not "disabled" within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Upon review of the testimony of the expert witnesses and the record of the Commission's analysis of her case, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support Ms. Harper's claim of disability in this case. The Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

Defendant Herman Ransom appealed a district court's denial of his motion for acquittal or for a new trial after he was convicted on wire fraud and theft of public money. Defendant was accused of falsifying his time sheets from work at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). When Defendant took full-day leaves, he listed "8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m." as his working hours. Though an assistant prepared the time sheets, he signed them and a supervisor approved them. The records were then forwarded via wire to a central processing unit. HUD received an anonymous complaint about Defendant's frequent absences from the office, and an internal investigation would reveal the discrepancy in his time sheets. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant challenged the validity of the evidence presented against him at trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable legal standard, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction on wire fraud and theft charges. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Petitioner Vickers Waugh appealed a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that ordered him removed from the United States. In August 2009, Petitioner pled guilty in Utah state court to one count of felonious sexual contact with a minor. Following his conviction, the government instituted removal proceedings. The immigration judge (IJ) found petitioner removable on two grounds: for sexual abuse of a minor and for child abuse. While Petitioner's proceedings were pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Padilla v. Kentucky," which held that a non-citizen defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to be advised of the risk of removal resulting from a guilty plea. Relying on that case, Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to terminate his removal proceedings. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner challenged the IJ and BIA's refusal to terminate the removal proceedings against him, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated when no one advised him of the potential of removal when he pled guilty to the state felony charges. The Tenth Circuit found that "Petitioner attempt[ed] to frame his argument as a denial of due process . . . [i]t appears Petitioner's true objection, however, is to the way the IJ and BIA exercised their discretion. . . . This challenge raise[d] neither a constitutional nor a legal issue." The Court found it did not have jurisdiction to review his petition, and declined further review.