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

Plaintiff Allstate Sweeping, LLC (Allstate) is owned and operated by two white women: Martha Krueger and Barbara Hollis. In January 2006 it began performing pressure-washing services at Denver International Airport (DIA) under a contract with the City and County of Denver (Denver). Although the contract term was through July 2008, it was terminated by Denver July, 2007. Defendant Calvin Black, a contract-compliance technician at DIA, was assigned to monitor Allstate’s contract. Black is an African-American male. Allstate claimed that it was subjected to gender- and race-based discrimination and to retaliation for its complaints of discrimination. It filed suit in the federal district court in Colorado against Denver and four DIA employees, including Black, claiming violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (Title VI), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants except Black, holding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether Black was motivated by racial and gender bias and whether Black created a hostile work environment in such a way as to make plaintiff’s contract "unprofitable and its owners miserable." It did not address Allstate’s retaliation claim. Black appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment, contending that he was entitled to qualified immunity and that the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the denial under the collateral-order doctrine. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s determinations because such sufficiency determinations are not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. The Court did, however, have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the claim that Black made Allstate’s owners "miserable" and to review the sufficiency of the evidence of the retaliation claim (which the district court did not consider). The Court reversed the denial of summary judgment on those claims. View "Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Black" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Theodore L. Hansen, Interstate Energy Corp. and Triple M, L.L.C., appealed a district court’s judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk. ("BNI"). Plaintiffs sued BNI and various other defendants based on BNI's refusal to honor certain bank guaranties and letters of credit. Eventually, the district court granted BNI's motion for summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Finding no error or abuse of the district court's discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Hansen, et al v. PT Bank Negara Indonesia, et al" on Justia Law

A Wyoming Highway Patrol trooper stopped Defendant Lee Vang Lor for speeding in 2007. After gaining consent to search the vehicle, the trooper found methamphetamine. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy. The district court sentenced him to 121 months' imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion. Defendant then filed a pro se petition to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 on the basis of newly discovered evidence: that the Wyoming Highway Patrol terminated the trooper who stopped Defendant because the trooper called in a false dispatch report after Defendant’s arrest but before his suppression hearing. Defendant argued this evidence would have undermined the trooper's testimony at Defendant's suppression hearing and that he was therefore entitled to a new hearing. The district court denied Defendant's 2255 petition. Defendant subsequently appealed. "A defendant is not deprived of a full and fair opportunity to litigate simply because he does not discover all potentially relevant evidence until after his suppression hearing. . . . Absent ineffective assistance of counsel or government concealment, a defendant cannot claim that the mere existence of undiscovered material evidence deprived him of an opportunity to litigate his claim." Finding no error in the district court's order, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lor" on Justia Law

Petitioner Charlene Burnett filed this action against James H. Woodall, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and fifty unnamed individuals. The complaint asserted violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (USCPA), and other related claims arising out of the foreclosure of her home. The district court dismissed Petitioner's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and she appealed that decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court: "We will not review an issue in the absence of reasoned arguments advanced by the appellant as to the grounds for its appeal." View "Burnett v. Mortgage Electronic, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick Merrill Brody was convicted, after a jury trial, of willful failure to file a tax return in 2001. He was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment and filed this appeal to challenge both his conviction and sentence. Primary among the arguments Defendant raised on appeal was the insufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial and that the trial court erred in calculating his sentence. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the sentence the trial court correctly calculated, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Brody" on Justia Law

Defendant Joey Ruby was on supervised release following a conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun. One of the conditions of his supervised release was that Ruby not commit any other crimes. He was unable to adhere to that condition, and was convicted of third-degree assault in Colorado state court. As a result, the district court revoked Defendant's release and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentence on the grounds that the district court erred in considering hearsay testimony at sentencing from three witnesses to the assault. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in considering the testimony, the Court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ruby" on Justia Law

Defendant Derrick Reuben Smith was convicted by a jury on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in relation to real estate mortgages. The district court declared a mistrial as to four other counts on which the jury could not reach a verdict, and later dismissed these counts without prejudice. At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory sentencing range of thirty-seven to forty-six months' imprisonment. The court then sentenced Defendant to forty months' imprisonment and ordered payment of restitution. On appeal, Defendant objected to the district court’s dismissal of the mistried counts without, rather than with, prejudice. He also raised two challenges to the district court's calculation of actual loss in its determination of the applicable sentencing range. Finding no error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Timothy McGlothin guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal he argued the district court erred in admitting at trial evidence of past instances in which he possessed a firearm. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant forfeited these arguments by failing to properly raise them before the district court and could not satisfy the exacting plain-error standard. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction. View "United States v. McGlothin" on Justia Law

Defendant Terrence Rutland was convicted in federal district court on robbery, narcotics, and firearm charges. Defendant contended his federal conviction for robbery and use of a firearm during a violent felony were invalid, arguing that the robbery of a drug dealer operating from his home was not a matter of interstate commerce because he was not engaged in a business. Defendant also claimed the district court erred by admitting numerous out-of-court statements as coconspirator statements when there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded a drug dealer's home business is part of interstate commerce, and the jurisdictional provisions of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, applied to Defendant's crimes. The Court also found no reversible error in the district court's evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Rutland" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Dr. Stephen and Linda Schneider were convicted of several counts of unlawful drug distribution, health care fraud, and money laundering, arising from their operation of a medical clinic. The district court sentenced Dr. Schneider to 360 months’ imprisonment, and his wife to 396 months’ imprisonment. The Schneiders appealed their convictions, alleging that: (1) they were denied the right to conflict-free representation; (2) the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony; (3) the district court improperly instructed the jury; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of health care fraud resulting in death. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that: (1)the Schneiders waived their right to conflict-free representation; (2) the expert testimony was properly admitted; (3) there was no error in the district court's jury instructions; and (4) the evidence admitted was sufficient to support the health care fraud charge. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court and the Schneiders' respective sentences. View "United States v. Schneider, et al" on Justia Law