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

An Indonesian couple appealed the denial of their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the application was untimely, and therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Batubara v. Holder" on Justia Law

This matter arose from efforts by Wasatch Wind Intermountain, LLC to establish two wind energy projects. These efforts drew the ire of the Northern Laramie Range Alliance, which objected to Wasatch’s certification to sell the energy. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected the objections, and the Alliance appealed FERC’s decision. The threshold issue for the Tenth Circuit was whether the Alliance has established standing, which requires traceability and redressability. For both, the Alliance relied on increases in electricity rates. But the wind projects had not been completed, Wasatch had not found a buyer for the anticipated wind power, and it was unknown whether sales of wind energy would increase or decrease Northern Laramie's costs. With the uncertainties surrounding the effect of Wasatch’s certification or decertification on electricity rates, the Court concluded the Alliance did not show either traceability or redressability. The Court therefore dismissed the petition for lack of standing. View "N. Laramie Range Alliance v. FERC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, appellant Bill Melot was convicted of one count of endeavoring to impede the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, one count of attempting to evade or defeat tax, six counts of willful failure to file, and seven counts of making false statements to the Department of Agriculture. He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment, which represented a significant downward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 210-262 months. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the IRS. On appeal, Melot argued the Government presented insufficient evidence of willfulness to support his convictions and erred in the calculating the tax loss and the amount of restitution. Upon careful consideration of the record of this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Melot's convictions, but reversed his sentence for recalculation. View "United States v. Melot" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kent LeBere was convicted for second-degree murder and second-degree arson. He received a 60-year sentence. He applied for habeas relief, arguing the State relied on perjured testimony and withheld potentially exculpatory evidence material to his defense. The only question presented to the Tenth Circuit on appeal was whether federal courts could consider his claim. After LeBere began serving his sentence and while his direct appeal was pending, Ronnie Archuleta, a key witness against him, recanted his testimony. LeBere promptly moved for a new trial based upon that newly discovered evidence. His new trial motion became a collateral part of his direct appeal and, after a hearing, it was denied. LeBere then brought this habeas petition expressly claiming, for the first time, a "Brady" violation based on the undisclosed acts of a detective who allegedly encouraged Archuleta to lie at the trial. The district judge abated these habeas proceedings to permit LeBere to exhaust his new claim in the state courts. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the Colorado trial court asserting his "Brady" claim. The petition was not decided on the merits; post-conviction relief was denied because the Brady claim was, sub silento, part of his newly discovered evidence claim, which was addressed and decided on direct appeal. Furthermore, the Brady issue was not considered to have been procedurally barred because it was not timely raised, it was considered to have been subsumed in the new trial motion and, in effect, decided when the new trial motion was denied. Under Colorado procedures it could not be revisited in post-conviction proceedings (successive bar). LeBere returned to federal court with the Brady claim; the district judge concluded it was procedurally barred by Colorado's successive bar rule. LeBere contended on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that Colorado's successive bar has no effect on the availability of habeas review of his particular claims. The Tenth Circuit concluded LeBere was correct and reversed. View "Lebere v. Abbott, et al" on Justia Law

At a joint trial, a jury acquitted Defendant-Appellant Olalekan Rufai and Adedayo Adegboye of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and convicted them of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud. The government and defendant agreed that an unindicted third party knowingly filed fraudulent claims on behalf of a medical equipment company set up by defendants. Defendant Rufai argued on appeal that the trial evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant and reversed his convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Rufai" on Justia Law

Following a joint trial with Co-Defendant Olalekan Rufai, a jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Adedayo Adegboye of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Finding the evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to support his convictions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Adegboye" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case stemmed from a civil-enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") against Defendant-Appellant Ralph Thompson, Jr., in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme Thompson ran through his company, Novus Technologies, L.L.C. ("Novus"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC on several issues, including the issue of whether the instruments Novus sold investors were "securities." Thompson's single issue on appeal was that the district court ignored genuine disputes of material fact on the issue of whether the Novus instruments were securities, and that he was entitled to have a jury make that determination. After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under the test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Reves v. Ernst & Young" (494 U.S. 56 (1990)), the district court correctly found that the instruments Thompson sold were securities as a matter of law. View "SEC v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Sergio Alvarez was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He pled guilty to the possession with intent to distribute charge, but he refused to plead guilty to the related conspiracy count and was convicted after trial. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court erred when it denied him an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

Abercrombie & Fitch appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, on the EEOC’s claim that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a prospective employee, Samantha Elauf in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Ms. Elauf ever informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore a hijab for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice because of Abercrombie’s clothing policy. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie. View "EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch" on Justia Law

Appellant Tyre S. Haggerty pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and one count of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. He appealed the convictions, arguing his seventy-two-month sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the criteria in United States Sentencing Guidelines for a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Both appellant and the government sought reversal and remand of the judgment, with directions for the district court to grant or deny the reduction based on its consideration of the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed appellant should be resentenced, and remanded to the district court. View "United States v. Haggerty" on Justia Law