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

In August 2009, defendant Tracy Morgan and his friend, Marvin Tabor, plotted to kidnap and rob Mario Armendariz. Tabor's brother-in-law, defendant Augustus Sanford, persuaded a police officer's minor child to steal four weapons and parts of a police uniform (cargo pants, a black police shirt, and an orange reflective vest) from his father in exchange for two ounces of marijuana. Sanford also painted his Chevrolet Tahoe black. Pursuant to their plan, Morgan attached a GPS tracking device to Armendariz's car while Armendariz was visiting Tabor's home. Tabor then tracked Armendariz's location on the Internet using Google Maps, enabling Morgan and defendant Killiu Ford to follow Armendariz in their vehicle. Sanford wore the stolen police gear; defendants then tracked Armendariz and his wife, Perla Flores, and their two young daughters outside of a cousin's house. The family saw two armed men exit a black Chevrolet Tahoe and at least one other man arrive from across the street. Two of the men zip-tied Armendariz's arms and legs together, covered his head, and put him into the back of the Tahoe. Ford questioned Armendariz about where he kept his money while an unknown co-conspirator drove the Tahoe around. Eventually the Tahoe dropped off Ford at Armendariz's home. Meanwhile, Sanford drove Ms. Flores and her daughters in her car to the Flores-Armendariz home. Defendants confronted Ms. Flores, demanding to know where Armendariz kept his money. Morgan put a gun to the three-year-old daughter's head, and Ms. Flores then told them the money was under her daughter's dresser. Morgan retrieved $30,000 from under the dresser and left the home. Later that night or early the next morning, Ford and Sanford looked for Morgan and found him at a Taco Bell. They divided the money taken from Armendariz's home. A jury convicted defendants of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each defendant brought a separate appeal, raising overlapping but not identical issues. Finding no reversible errors to any defendant, the Tenth Circuit affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant Sevgi Muhammad was indicted on 24 counts of mail fraud, two counts of making a false statement, and one count of stealing public money. All the charges arose out of Defendant’s obtaining housing assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). She pleaded no contest to one count of making a false statement. At the sentencing hearing, however, she moved to withdraw her plea. The district court denied the motion, and sentenced defendant to serve three years of probation and pay restitution. On appeal defendant argued her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw the plea. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Randy Howard sought to bring a class action suit against Ferrellgas Partners, LP in federal district court for allegedly overcharging him and other customers. Ferrellgas moved to force plaintiff to pursue his individual claim alone, in arbitration, arguing that arbitration was the procedure the parties had agreed to. The district court was unable to conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate. Rather than proceed to trial as the Federal Arbitation Act required, the district court entered an order denying arbitration outright. The Tenth Circuit concluded that denial was error: "When it's apparent from a quick look at the case that no material disputes of fact exist, it may be permissible and efficient for a district court to decide the arbitration question as a matter of law through motions practice and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing arbitration. . . . Parties should not have to endure years of waiting and exhaust legions of photocopiers in discovery and motions practice merely to learn where their dispute will be heard. The Act requires courts process the venue question quickly so the parties can get on with the merits of their dispute in the right forum. It calls for a summary trial — not death by discovery." View "Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Eric Kamahele, Daniel Maumau, Kepa Maumau, Sitamipa Toki, and Mataika Tuai appealed their convictions arising from armed robberies and shootings in connection with the Tongan Crips Gang (TCG) in Glendale, Utah. After a jury trial, Kamahele, Kepa Maumau, and Tuai were found guilty of conspiring to commit a racketeering offense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Kamahele, both Maumaus, and Toki were found guilty of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (VICAR). Kamahele, Kepa Maumau, and Tuai were also found guilty of violating the Hobbs Act. And all were found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2006), for using guns during their respective crimes. All defendants argued the district court erred by: (1) admitting expert testimony about the TCG's history, structure, and activities; and (2) denying their motions for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 based on the Government's failure to prove various elements of RICO and VICAR. Four defendants raised individual claims pertaining to alleged trial court errors in instructing the jury, selecting the jury, admitting certain evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and deciding the appropriate sentences. Rejecting all of the defendants' arguments, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Kamahele" on Justia Law

Keith Scott Pulliam was indicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an armed career criminal. He moved to suppress the fruits (firearms) of a search of his home. On appeal, he claimed the application for the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause and the search by state officers was unreasonably executed. After the district judge denied his suppression motion he pled guilty under a plea agreement, which reserved his right to appeal the denial. The judge accepted the plea and sentenced Pulliam to a 75 month prison term. Exercising his reserved right, Pulliam appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Pulliam" on Justia Law

Alan Christoffersen drove a truck for United Parcel Service (UPS) until he was struck and killed by an underinsured motorist. After the accident, Christoffersen's heirs sued UPS and its automobile insurer (Liberty Mutual Insurance Group), asserting claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted UPS's motion on the ground that Utah's Worker's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. On the claim against Liberty Mutual, the court granted judgment to the heirs for $10,000. The heirs and Liberty Mutual appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Liberty Mutual did not incur liability because UPS validly rejected UIM coverage; therefore, with regard to the claim against Liberty Mutual, the Court reversed the judgment of $10,000 for the heirs and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment to Liberty Mutual on the entire claim. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to UPS because it was not considered a "self insurer" for purposes of Utah's UIM statute. View "Christoffersen v. United Parcel Service, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Gwen Bergman was arrested when the hit-man she thought she hired to kill her husband was in fact an undercover police officer. After trial, it emerged that defendant's lawyer was not a lawyer-in-fact, but a con man. Defendant applied for habeas relief on the ground that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court agreed with her: the court vacated her conviction, and discharged her from supervised release (she had finished her prison term). Assuming the court's decision to vacate the conviction it won at defendant's first trial was without prejudice to a new trial with a (real) defense lawyer, the government asked the court to set a date. The district court refused, stating that its discharge order "implicitly" forbade any effort to secure a valid conviction at a second trial. The government appealed the district court's decision to the Tenth Circuit. The government's appeal raised the question of whether defendant could be exposed to a new trial and lawful conviction despite having successfully petitioned for habeas relief and served her jail sentence. Rather than contend categorically that only double jeopardy problems may preclude retrial, the government suggested that the remedy the district court selected was too attenuated from the right it found violated: defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. "[T]he presumptively appropriate remedy for a trial with an ineffective lawyer is a new trial with an effective one. . . . the district court failed to identify any reason why that presumption is inapplicable here; and in these circumstances refusing a new trial amounts to an abuse of discretion." View "United States v. Bergman" on Justia Law

In May 2011 Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law an appropriations bill restricting the classes of entities eligible for Title X of the Public Health Service Act subgrants. The restriction disqualified two family-planning clinics operated by Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (Planned Parenthood). Planned Parenthood sued Governor Brownback and Robert Moser, M.D., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), challenging the legislation: (1) that it violated Title X and was therefore unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause; (2) that it violated Planned Parenthood's First Amendment rights by penalizing it for associating with providers of abortion and for its advocacy of access to abortion services; and (3) that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an unconstitutional burden on the rights of women to choose abortion (a claim not raised on appeal). Ruling that Planned Parenthood had established a likelihood of success on the merits of the first two claims and had otherwise satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, the district court enjoined KDHE from implementing the legislation. After review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the injunction. With regard to the Supremacy Clause claim, the Court concluded Planned Parenthood could not establish a likelihood of success on the merits because there was no private cause of action for injunctive relief for the alleged violation of Title X. With regard to the First Amendment claim, the Court held that that Planned Parenthood could not establish a likelihood of success because the legislation does not restrict the rights of speech or association of subgrantees and the motives of individual lawmakers were irrelevant. View "Planned Parenthood KS & Mid-MO v. Brownback, et al" on Justia Law

Rick Reese owned a licensed firearms store in southern New Mexico and ran it with his wife, Terri, and two sons, Ryin and Remington. In 2012, a jury convicted the Reeses for aiding and abetting straw purchases of firearms from the store. Unbeknownst to them, at the time of trial the FBI was investigating one of the government's witnesses for his alleged involvement in various criminal activities. Arguing that the government's failure to disclose that information before trial violated "Brady v. Maryland," (373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and "Giglio v. United States," (405 U.S. 150 (1972)). The district court concluded that the government had withheld favorable, material evidence from Defendants and accordingly granted their motion for a new trial. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court erred in doing so. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred because the investigation was not material. Therefore the Court reversed the district court's order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Reese, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff–Appellant Hornady Manufacturing Company, Inc., appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to Defendant–Appellee DoubleTap, Inc., on Hornady's trademark infringement claims. Hornady manufactured and sold firearm ammunition and related products. Since 1997, Hornady sold various products under the name "TAP," short for "Tactical Application Police." Hornady acquired trademark registration for the nonstylized word mark, "TAP." Photographs in the record indicated that the packaging for Hornady's products conspicuously features the TAP mark, both as a stand-alone mark and as incorporated within a shield resembling a police officer's badge. DoubleTap has been described as a "niche" ammunition manufacturer. Photographs in the record indicated that, as of 2006, packaging for DoubleTap's products displayed its mark as two separate words, "Double Tap," within a blue oval and flanked to the left by two bullet holes. Both parties moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on whether DoubleTap infringed on Hornady's TAP mark. Reviewing the record de novo, the Tenth Circuit held hold that two factors, strength of the mark and similarity of products and marketing, favored Hornady. The remaining four factors favored DoubleTap. "The tilt of the scales does not determine the issue. However, the key inquiry, the similarity of the marks, strongly favors DoubleTap." Hornady failed to raise a genuine factual issue regarding the likelihood of confusion, and the district court properly awarded summary judgment to DoubleTap. View "Hornady Manufacturing Co. v. Doubletap" on Justia Law