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

A methamphetamine dealer and several of his buyers and sellers were indicted for their alleged involvement in a distribution conspiracy. Defendant-buyer Jesus Figueroa-Labrada was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute. His presentence report (PSR) doubled his Sentencing Guidelines range. The sentencing court adopted the PSR but made no particularized findings on defendant's relevant conduct. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculation of methamphetamine attributed to him and the court's failure to make particularized findings. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed on defendant's second challenge and remanded the case for particularized findings and resentencing. View "United States v. Figueroa-Labrada" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Daniel Renteria, Alex Garcia, Jr., and Miguel Ordaz were convicted on various counts relating to a drug conspiracy in two states. Defendants' appeals were consolidated in this opinion. All challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against them, the admission of certain evidence, and the calculation of their sentences. Because the Tenth Circuit found no error in the trial court's judgment (harmless or otherwise), the Court affirmed their respective convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Renteria" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma City car dealer, Automax Hyundai South, sued its insurance company for refusing to defend it when the dealership was sued by customers. Two aggrieved customers brought claims against Automax relating to car purchases they made. The customers won their cases at the state court. The district court ruled that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify Automax in the underlying lawsuits. Upon review of the district court record and the policy at issue, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Automax and concluded the insurance company had a duty to defend. View "Automax v. Zurich, et al" on Justia Law

What started as a routine inspection of Defendant-Appellant Norman Washington Berry’s commercial tractor-trailer at a New Mexico port of entry ended with his conviction for possessing with intent to deliver 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (the drugs were nestled inside the fruit crates). Defendant argued on appeal that a "permissive inference" in a jury instruction was given in error, in addition, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, particularly as it established the weight of the marijuana to be more than 100 kilograms. Furthermore, he claimed his sentence ought not to have been enhanced based on his use of a special skill (commercial truck driving) to help commit the crime. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

A three-person nonprofit, Free Speech, brought facial and as-applied challenges against 11 C.F.R. Sec. 100.22(b). The district court dismissed, concluding that Free Speech's claims that its First Amendment rights were violated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) were implicated only to disclosure requirements subject to exacting scrutiny and requiring a "substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest." Free Speech appealed to the Tenth Circuit. On appeal, the group argued that the district court erred in its conclusion, arguing that policies and rules of the FEC were unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and triggered burdensome registration and reporting requirements on the group that acted as the functional equivalent of a prior restraint on political speech. After careful review of the appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record, the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. View "Free Speech v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner-appellant Donte Lamonte Parker appealed the denial of his section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. His request for a certificate of appealability (COA) was also denied by the district judge, prompting him to resubmit his application to the Tenth Circuit. Finding not error in the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. Furthermore, because he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court denied petitioner's application for a COA. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

During a seventy-two-hour involuntary mental health hold, Ian Wittner was injected with Haldol. He died following the injection. His parents sued defendants the medical center and the treating doctor under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and the parents appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that defendants were not state actors for the purposes of section 1983, and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment. The Court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, affirmed the denial of the parents' Rule 59(e) motion, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of defendants. View "Wittner, et al v. Banner Health, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant George Lopez conducted mediations in a program created and managed by the Administrative Office of Courts of the State of Utah. In 2006, he was removed from the panel of mediators that mediated certain domestic matters. Plaintiff brought suit in federal district court alleging that his removal from that list of mediators violated his right to due process and his right to equal protection of the laws in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. He also alleged breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Upon review of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Tenth Circuit found that because Plaintiff's primary argument was based on his alleged contractual rights as a public employee, and because the Court found that there was no implied contract (because evidence in the record revealed Plaintiff was not a public employee), Plaintiff's arguments necessarily failed. View "Lopez v. Admin Office of the Court" on Justia Law

The government alleged Defendant-Appellant Richard Clark, along with other co-conspirators, manipulated shares of several penny-stocks by using false and backdated documents to make those shares publically tradable, then coordinated the trading among themselves to create the false appearance of an active market for those shares. The shares were sold after the prices surged. The conspirators laundered the proceeds through multiple bank accounts and nominees (a "pump-and-dump" scheme). Defendant was charged and convicted on multiple counts for his participation in the scheme. He appealed his conviction to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) the pretrial placement of a caveat on his property violated his constitutional rights; (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the district court erred in refusing to appoint additional or substitute counsel better versed in complex securities issues; (4) the district court erred by failing to sever his case from his co-conspirator's; and (5) his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated by a fourteen-month delay between filing of the indictment and the start of trial. The Tenth Circuit addressed each of Defendant's contentions in its opinion, but found no discernible error. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendants Randy Dyke and Don Steele were caught in a government undercover sting operation and charged with drug, forgery and counterfeiting charges. A jury rejected their entrapment defense. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, defendants argued (among other things) that the charges against them should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been dismissed as a matter of law because the undercover operation amounted to "outrageous governmental conduct." After a lengthy analysis, the Court declined to adopt other circuits' use of an "outrageous governmental conduct" standard, concluding that defendants failed to persuade the Court that they might prevail under any of the tests suggested by the case law. Defendants argued in the alternative that they were entrapped, the evidence presented against them was insufficient to support the charges against them, and that the trial court erred in calculating their sentences. Finding no entrapment, that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions, and no error in their sentences, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Dyke" on Justia Law