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

Defendant-Appellant Larry Eugene Hodge appealed the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Raul Roger Orona, Jr., appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Orona was sentenced to 198 months' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the use of a juvenile adjudication as a predicate offense for ACCA purposes violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review that Orona did not establish his constitutional rights were violated by the sentence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "United States v. Orona" on Justia Law

This was a FDCPA action stemming from proceedings that occurred in a debt collection action filed by Defendant Abby Shadakofsky against Plaintiff-Appellant George James in Wyoming state court in August 2011. Shadakofsky retained Defendant-Appellee Cheryl Wadas, a licensed attorney whom Shadakofsky had a previous retainer agreement, to represent her on an as-needed basis. James asserted that Wadas, and Shadakofsky vicariously as Wadas's principal, violated the FDCPA by: (1) representing that legal fees were $3,000 when the underlying debt did not provide for the recovery of legal fees; (2) serving and filing an untimely answers/replies to the counterclaims; and (3) serving discovery requests in relation to the counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wadas. Shadakofsky subsequently moved to dismiss the vicarious liability claim against her and the district court granted the motion. James appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment. At issue before the Tenth Circuit was the district court's interpretation of the term "debt collector" under the FDCPA, and its conclusion that Wadas was not a "debt collector" because she did not engage in debt collection "regularly." The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's analysis and affirmed. View "James v. Wadas, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner WildEarth Guardians challenged an Environmental Protection Agency order that denied in part its petition for an objection to a Title V operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to Intervenor Public Service Company of Colorado (d/b/a Xcel Energy), for a coal-fired power station in Morgan County, Colorado. Petitioner argued that the permit should have included a plan to bring the station into compliance with the Clean Air Act. The EPA denied Petitioner's petition for an objection despite the EPA's issuing a citation to Public Service for violating the act in 2002. The EPA concluded that Petitioner's evidence failed to demonstrate a violation, and that the state agency adequately responded to Petitioner's comments before it issued the permit. Petitioner petitioned the Tenth Circuit on appeal. The Court saw no error in the EPA's persuasive interpretation of the demonstration requirement. Furthermore, the Court concluded the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate noncompliance with the Act. Therefore the Court affirmed the EPA's order denying in part the petition to object. View "WildEarth v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Western Watersheds Project (WWP) challenged a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision to grant a 10-year grazing permit to LHS Split Rock Ranch, LLC for four federal public land allotments in central Wyoming. WWP asserted that BLM?s decision to grant the grazing permit was arbitrary and capricious because BLM had previously concluded that past grazing was a substantial cause of serious environmental degradation on the allotments. The district court granted summary judgment to BLM. WWP appealed. Finding that the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Western Watersheds Project v. BLM" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's rejection of Defendant Francisco Chavez's request to serve his federal and state sentences for methamphetamine smuggling concurrently instead of consecutively. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases for review, petitioners challenged a rule by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. Petitioners argued that the EPA impermissibly rejected Oklahoma’s plan to limit the emissions of sulfur dioxide at Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company power plants and replaced it with its own more stringent regulations, which petitioners contended usurped the state’s authority and would require sizable expenditures on unnecessary technology. The Tenth Circuit concluded the EPA has authority to review the state’s plan and that it lawfully exercised that authority in rejecting it and promulgating its own. Accordingly, the Court denied the petitions. View "Oklahoma v. EPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Newsome, a litigation trustee appointed by the bankruptcy court, administered the legal claims of Mahalo Energy (USA), Inc. He brought suit against the corporation's former directors and officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. All defendants are Canadian citizens. The defendants moved to have the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted that motion. At issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether or not the district court erred in granting that motion. The Tenth Circuit concluded that defendants cultivated sufficient contacts with the US (specifically, Oklahoma) to justify getting sued there. Furthermore, the Court held that the "fiduciary shield doctrine" did not apply in this case. The Court reversed as to individual defendants, and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the Court affirmed dismissal with regard to the company's law firm: as an out-of-state firm that performed all of its relevant services out-of-state on an out-of-state transaction, it did not meet the minimum threshold of contact with the forum state to justify personal jurisdiction there. View "Newsome, et al v. Gallacher, et al" on Justia Law

A dispute arose among the parties in this case over internet advertising through "AdWords," a Google program whereby companies pay the search engine to feature its ads whenever a user uses certain keywords. At issue was whether the Lanham Act was violated by one of the parties' use of keywords that resembled a competitior-party's service mark. Upon review of the keywords and service marks in question here, the Tenth Circuit found no violation of the Act. View "1-800 Contacts v. Lens.com, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jason Courtney brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against an Oklahoma State Trooper and the State of Oklahoma based on a traffic stop. He was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm as a result of that stop. Plaintiff alleged the trooper violated his constitutional rights by unreasonably extending the scope of the stop and arresting him without probable cause. The district court ruled in favor of the State and the trooper; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from suit with regard to extending the scope of the traffic stop. However, the Court reversed the grant of immunity with regard to Plaintiff's claims of unlawful arrest without probable cause. Furthermore, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the State on Plaintiff's claims for false arrest, conversion, assault and battery. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Courtney v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law