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

Defendant-Appellant Adrian Patterson was convicted by jury trial of a number of drug charges, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. On appeal, Defendant raised a number of challenges to his conviction and sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that none of the pretrial, trial, and sentencing claims had merit. As such, the Court held that (among other things) that the district court did not err in denying a competency hearing; declining to exclude evidence at trial on Fourth Amendment and hearsay grounds; conducting and instructing the jury; and sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Joseph Benoit was convicted of receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 125 and 120 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution. He challenged his convictions and sentence on multiple grounds, namely that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his computer; (2) conviction of receipt and possession of child pornography was a violation of Double Jeopardy; and (3) that the district court's restitution order was improper. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Defendant's second contention, that possession was a lesser included offense of receipt in cases in which the same child pornography forms the basis of each charge. The Court also found that with regard to its restitution order, the district court did not explain whether specific losses suffered by the victim were proximately caused by Benoit's actions. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case for a redetermination of the portion of damages allocable to Defendant. The Court affirmed as to Defendant's numerous remaining claims. View "United States v. Benoit" on Justia Law

In August 2000, an Oklahoma state court jury convicted Petitioner-Appellant Clayton Lockett of 19 counts, including burglary, assault, rape, and first degree murder. He was sentenced to 2,285 years and 90 days of imprisonment for his non-capital crimes and sentenced to death for his murder conviction. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence and later denied post-conviction relief. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus federal district court for the Western District of Oklahoma, challenging his conviction and death sentence on 15 grounds. The federal district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on seven. Appellant petitioned the Tenth Circuit to grant a COA on three additional issues. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief on all grounds, and denied Appellant's request for a COA on additional grounds. View "Lockett v. Workman" on Justia Law

Defendants Mark Rosalez, Juan Ruelas, and Justin Hernandez, all of whom were federal inmates at the time of their underlying crimes, were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of conspiracy to assault another inmate, and second-degree murder. All three defendants were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment as a result of these convictions. Each defendant appealed his convictions, raising various claims of error at trial. Finding none, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment for each defendant. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Pro se appellant John Schoppe petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a Tax Court decision that found him liable for tax deficiencies for the years 2002-2007. While the case was proceeding before the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition. That filing prompted the Court to request a supplemental briefing from the parties on whether the automatic bankruptcy stay would apply to appellant's appeal before the Tenth Circuit. Finding that 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code did not stay this appeal, the Court reviewed the Tax Court decision and affirmed it. View "Schoppe v. CIR" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Glen Llewellyn filed this action asserting a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, and a state law outrageous conduct claim against Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Nomura Credit and Capital, Inc. (collectively, the Ocwen Defendants) based on their alleged credit reporting inaccuracies, and asserting an FDCPA and an outrageous conduct claim against Castle Meinhold & Stawiarski, LLC in connection with foreclosure actions CMS took against Plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on each of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff appealed, arguing summary judgment was inappropriate on his FCRA and FDCPA claims. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit reversed the portion of the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Ocwen Defendants on Plaintiff's FCRA claim based on his alleged emotional damages and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court's order was otherwise affirmed. View "Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (ILM) appealed the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial following a $2.2 million jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Ryan Development Company, L.C., d/b/a Agriboard Industries (Agriboard). This case arose from a fire that destroyed a Texas manufacturing facility in April 2009. Agriboard, manufactured building panels made of compressed straw. At the time of the fire, Agriboard was insured under a fire and related losses insurance policy issued by ILM with various coverages including lost income. By May 2009, ILM had paid $450,000; Agriboard filed suit and thereafter ILM paid $1.8 million. Agriboard continued to seek recovery under the policy, but ILM refused to pay the amount requested and Agriboard re-filed suit, seeking $2.4 million in unpaid coverages. The trial court denied ILM's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. ILM timely appealed that denial to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying ILM's motion and affirmed the lower court's judgment. View "Ryan Development Co. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Klein-Becker USA and Klein-Becker IP Holdings sued Patrick Englert and Mr. Finest, Inc., for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act; false advertising under the Utah Truth in Advertising Act; unfair competition under the Utah Unfair Practices Act; fraud; civil conspiracy; and intentional interference with existing and prospective business relations. The action arose from Englert's unauthorized selling of "StriVectin" skin care products: he posed as a General Nutrition Center (GNC) store to purchase the products at below wholesale rates. Englert then sold the products through eBay and other commercial web platforms, including his own, "mrfinest.com." Englert was sanctioned several times for failing to comply with court orders and discovery schedules. The third and final sanction resulted in the entry of default judgment for Klein-Becker on all remaining claims. Englert appealed the district court's entry of default judgment against him, determination of his personal liability and the amount of damages owed, grant of a permanent injunction, denial of a jury trial, and refusal to allow him to call a certain witness. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no fault in the district court's analysis or judgment and affirmed. View "Klein-Becker USA v. Englert" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant George David Gordon was a former securities attorney convicted of multiple criminal charges relating to his alleged participation in a "pump-and-dump" scheme where he (along with others) violated the federal securities laws by artificially inflating the value of various stocks, then turning around and selling them for a substantial profit. The government restrained some of his property before the indictment was handed down and ultimately obtained criminal forfeiture of that property. On appeal, Defendant raised multiple issues relating to the validity of his conviction and sentence, and the propriety of the government’s conduct (both before and after trial) related to the forfeiture of his assets. In the end, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, as well as the district court’s forfeiture orders. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), as amended by the Reform Act of 1987, required the Secretary of the Interior to issue leases for parcels of land to the highest bidding energy company within sixty days of payment to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Appellants (collectively, "Energy Companies") sued to compel the Secretary to issue pending leases on which they were the high bidders and more than sixty days had passed since they had paid the BLM in full. The district court construed the MLA to impose a mandate on the Secretary to decide whether to issue the leases, and ordered BLM to make such decisions regarding the still pending leases of Energy Companies within thirty days. Energy Companies appealed the district court's order and asserted that the MLA required the Secretary to issue the pending leases within sixty days rather than merely make a decision on whether the leases will be issued. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s order was not a "final decision," and as such, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Energy Companies' appeal. View "Western Energy Alliance v. Salazar" on Justia Law