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

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether a settlement agreement between the parties waived the State's "Eleventh Amendment" right not to be sued in federal court. After review of the settlement agreement, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the language of the settlement was not explicit, its reference to bringing suit in federal court had no other reasonable construction except as a waiver. Therefore, the settlement contained a waiver of that right. View "Pettigrew v.Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the district court's decision at the original sentencing for Defendant Travis Boyd granting a downward departure of his criminal-history category was an "application decision" that remained "unaffected" with regard to the federal sentencing guidelines, or whether the departure should have been disregarded in calculating the ultimate sentence. Upon review, the Court held it should have been disregarded. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Robert Clifton Tanner was charged with four counts of mail fraud. He entered into an agreement where he agreed to plead guilty to one count for which he would receive a stipulated sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Tanner to the agreed 30 months. As part of the agreement, Tanner waived his right to appeal unless the punishment imposed was greater than the parties had agreed. Despite this waiver and the imposition of the agreed sentence, Tanner appealed, claiming his sentence was illegal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver. The Tenth Circuit granted the government's motion. View "United States v. Tanner" on Justia Law

Deputy defendant Johnny Barrientos of the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department appealed a district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in a 28 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by Lucia Fancher, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Nick Dominguez. Fancher alleges Barrientos used excessive force when he shot Dominguez seven times following a confrontation. Dominguez died as a result of one or more gunshot wounds. Barrientos argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. The district court granted Barrientos's motion for summary judgment to the extent Fancher's claim arose from the firing of the initial shot, but denied the motion to the extent the claim arose from the subsequent six. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that it lacked jurisdiction to hear two of the three arguments Barrientos raised on appeal. The Court was unpersuaded by Barrientos' third argument. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of his motion for summary judgment. View "Fancher v. Barrientos, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Jesse Nicholson appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He entered a conditional guilty plea to three drug and weapons-related charges. Defendant was pulled over by Roswell police for being "insufficiently cautious" in making a left turn into a business' parking lot. Defendant argued that the officer lacked probable cause to pull him over, and therefore the drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons police recovered from a search of his vehicle were obtained illegally. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress, and remanded the case with directions to vacated defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Nicholson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Oliver Rojas appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Kenneth Anderson and Nicholas Wilson. Plaintiff brought claims against defendants, both police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 following his arrest for attempting to assault one of the officers. Plaintiff was stopped when he was struggling to enter a house at three o'clock in the morning. Plaintiff told the officers he lived there (and showed that his driver's license listed the house's address), but the officers elected to take Plaintiff to a detoxification center due to his inebriated state. Plaintiff refused to comply with the officer's orders, and made an effort to free his arm from one of the officers' grasp; the officer construed this act as an attempt to hit him. Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, and according to Plaintiff, after he had been removed from the patrol car with his hands and feet tied, Defendants picked him up and dropped him face-first onto the asphalt, causing him to split open his chin and fracture his jaw. The district court concluded that defendants' act of dropping plaintiff did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights and therefore granted summary judgment in their favor. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Rojas, et al v. Anderson, et al" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between Elm Ridge Exploration Company, LLC, an operator of oil and gas leases in New Mexico, and Fred Engle, who owned a majority of those leases. Elm Ridge sought to recover drilling expenses by foreclosing on Engle's lease interests. Engle counterclaimed, arguing that Elm Ridge had no authority to operate, and broadly that Elm Ridge breached its contractual and fiduciary duties. Engle also filed a third-party complaint against the previous operators, Central Resources, Inc. and Giant Exploration & Production Company. The district court dismissed two counts on Engle's counterclaim against Elm Ridge and the third-party complaint on statute of limitations grounds. After a trial on Engle's remaining counterclaim count (breach of contractual and fiduciary duties), a jury found that Elm Ridge breached the Operating Agreement and could not recover drilling expenses. The jury found that Engle still owed Elm Ridge for other drilling costs. The district court calculated Engle's share of the costs not attributable to the breach, and held Elm Ridge was entitled to a foreclosure order. Both parties appealed. Finding no error in the district court's calculation or ultimate disposition of the case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Engle v. Elm Ridge Exploration Co." on Justia Law

Investors in Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. brought a class action against the mortgage originator alleging violations of the Securities Act based on omissions and misrepresentations in the stock offering documents. The district court dismissed on the grounds that it found no omissions or misrepresentations in the offering documents, and if there were, they were not material. Plaintiffs broadly challenged all of the district court's holdings. Finding no error in the district court's ruling, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Slater v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Mikolon entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a fugitive. He was sentenced to 209 days of time served. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the incriminating statements he made after he was arrested but before he was advised of his Miranda rights. The trial court found the statements admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda, regardless that the government promised not to use the statements at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion. View "United States v. Mikolon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Benjamin Spence was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. He received a 180 month prison sentence to be followed by four years' supervised release. He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial court failed to exclude proposed testimony of his father that he had never seen the gun he was alleged to have possessed, never saw it fired, and possessed it only for a brief time. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support his conviction, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Spence" on Justia Law