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

Petitioner Sara Debord filed suit against her employer, Mercy Health Services of Kansas, for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Petitioner claimed Mercy knew or should have known that her supervisor created a hostile workplace through unwanted touching and offensive sexual remarks. She also claimed that Mercy did not do enough to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, and that, when she finally reported the harassment, Mercy retaliated by firing her. After reviewing the evidence at summary judgment, the district court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact. The Tenth Circuit, after its review of the matter, agreed with the district court: the record did not disclose that Mercy knew or should have known about petitioner's allegations of a hostile workplace, and she did not provide a reasonable explanation for the nearly five years she waited to first report the harassment. Nor was there a genuine dispute about whether Mercy honestly held legitimate reasons for terminating Debord based on its conclusion that she was dishonest and disruptive during Mercy's investigation of allegations about her supervisor's conduct and claims she improperly received extra pay. View "Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, et al" on Justia Law

Ute Mesa, a Colorado real estate developer, received a multi-million dollar loan to construct a single family home on property it owned in Aspen. To secure the loan, United Western Bank prepared a deed of trust incorrectly identifying Ute Mesa's sole member as the owner rather than Ute Mesa. The Bank filed suit seeking a reformation of the deed of trust and a declaration that it had a first priority lien on the property. Days later, the Bank filed notice of lis pendens in the county real property records. Ute Mesa filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, and continued as debtor-in-possession of the property. Ute Mesa then filed an adversary proceeding against the Bank to avoid the lis pendens as a preferential transfer. The bankruptcy court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss, and the federal district court affirmed. Ute Mesa argued on appeal that a "transfer of an interest in property" occurs when a bona fide purchaser cannot acquire an interest superior to that of a creditor. According to Ute Mesa, because the lis pendens prevented a bona fide purchaser from acquiring an interest in the property superior to the Bank’s interest, the lis pendens qualified as a transfer of an interest in the property. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that a lis pendens is "merely a notice" and does not constitute a lien, therefore, no transfer occurred. View "Ute Mesa Lot 1, LLC v. First Citizens Bank & Trust, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Basnett, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment (with 2 years of supervised release). He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the sentence was too long. When the trial court imposed the sentence, it relied on guidelines governing possession of at least eight firearms and possession of firearms in connection with a separate felony. On appeal, the issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court had enough evidence to reasonably infer defendant possessed: (1) eight or more guns (other than antiques or those owned solely for hunting or collecting); and (2) at least one gun in connection with a separate felony. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Court concluded that the government had sufficient evidence to draw these inferences. View "United States v. Basnett" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicki Dillard Crowe was convicted by a jury on eight counts of mail fraud, and eight counts of wire fraud for her participation in a mortgage fraud scheme. The district court sentenced defendant to sixty months' imprisonment and was ordered her to make restitution. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss associated with her crimes for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b), and in denying her motion for new trial, which alleged ineffective assistance on the part of her trial counsel. Defendant's challenge to the district court's calculation of loss raised an issue of first impression for the Tenth Circuit: whether the concept of reasonable foreseeability applied to a district court’s calculation of the "credits against loss" under 2B1.1(b). The Court adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning in "United States v. Turk," (626 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 2010)), and held that the concept of reasonable foreseeability applies only to a district court's calculation of "actual loss" under 2B1.1(b), and not to its calculation of the "credits against loss." The Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Crowe" on Justia Law

Petitioner Benjamin Cole was convicted of one count of first degree murder of a child (his nine-month-old daughter), for which he was sentenced to death. He appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the denial of petitioner's request for habeas relief. View "Cole v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Defendant Philbert Rentz fired a single gunshot that wounded one victim and killed another. He was charged with two separate counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant moved to dismiss the second count. The district court granted his motion, holding that the applicable statute under which defendant was charged could not support multiple charges arising from a single use of a firearm. The Government appealed the pre-trial dismissal of the second count. Finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the second count, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Rentz" on Justia Law

Defendant Germain Harris was convicted on federal weapons and drugs charges stemming from the arrest and conviction of Alonzo Johnson for the contract killing of a Tulsa businessman. Harris challenged his convictions, arguing the district court should have suppressed evidence found at his auto shop or granted his motion for a new trial. Specifically, Harris argued the warrant was constitutionally defective on its fact, and as such, the subsequent search of his shop by law enforcement was a violation of his rights. After careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded the warrant was not defective, and that the district court did not err in denying his motion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Harris' conviction. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant Eni Oyegoke-Eniola challenged his sentence following his guilty plea to charges of mail fraud, and making a false statement on an immigration document. He raised four errors on appeal: (1) that the district court improperly imposed enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) that Defendant's statements made under an immunity agreement should have been stricken from the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR); (3) that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence; and (4) that the court failed to rule on some of Defendant's objections to the PSR. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's first claim was meritorious with respect to two enhancements and therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Oyegoke-Eniola" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Reydecel Chavez, a Mexican native, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and reentry of a removed alien. He appealed the district court's order permitting the government to involuntarily medicate him pursuant to "United States v. Sell," (539 U.S. 166 (2003)), in order to make him competent to stand trial. Finding that the government did not satisfy all of the "Sell" requirements, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Since the early 1990s, Chevron and its predecessor Texaco, Inc., have defended litigation concerning Texaco's operations in Ecuador and the environmental contamination it allegedly produced. This litigation started in the Southern District of New York but eventually found its way to Ecuadorian courts. In 2011, the court in Lago Agrio entered an $18.2 billion judgment against Chevron, which Chevron appealed. In this case, Chevron appealed the United States district court's order granting a motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoenas issued under 28 U.S.C. 1782. Chevron sought relief from that judgment pursuant to investment treaty arbitration under United Nations' rules. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "The Republic of Ecuador, et al v. Bjorkman" on Justia Law