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

In 1994, two surface-to-air missiles brought down an aircraft carrying then Rwandan and Burundi Presidents Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, both of Hutu ethnicity. The killings fueled the Rwandan genocide, which spread violence across East Central Africa and killed millions of innocent victims. Some believe the then Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front headed by current Rwandan President Paul Kagame was behind the killings. The widows of the two former heads-of-state, Madame Habyarimana and Madame Ntaryamira, blamed President Kagame for their husbands' deaths. They filed suit in Oklahoma federal court seeking to hold him liable under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Act, the Racketeeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and multiple state and international laws. During the pendency of this case in the district court, the United States, at the request of the Rwandan Government, submitted a "Suggestion of Immunity" on behalf of President Kagame. The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court in dismissing this case due to President Kagame's immunity: "[quoting case law precedent] 'the precedents are overwhelming. For more than 160 years American courts have consistently applied the doctrine of sovereign immunity when requested to do so by the executive branch. Moreover, they have done so with no further review of the executive's determination.' Simply stated, '[i]t is . . . not for the courts to deny an immunity which our government has seen fit to allow.'" View "Habyarimana v. Kagame" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether a prior conviction constituted a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Defendant Gerald Sandoval pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, he admitted to several previous felony convictions, two of which, he also admitted, were violent felonies as defined by the ACCA. But he claimed neither of the two remaining previous felonies considered by the court, first-degree criminal trespass and second-degree assault, were violent. Because either conviction could serve as the third "violent felony" triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA, the Tenth Circuit addressed only one and concluded his conviction of second degree assault, even though mitigated by heat of passion, is a violent crime for the purposes of the ACCA. View "United States v. Sandoval" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arthur Firstenberg allegedly suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which requires him to avoid exposure to sources of electromagnetic radiation. These sources include cell-phone towers which emit radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Petitioner filed suit against the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (AT&T), asserting that signal upgrades at AT&T base stations in Santa Fe adversely affected his health and that the City is required to regulate those upgrades. The district court dismissed Petitioner's action against the City and AT&T for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Petitioner appealed. After briefing, the Tenth Circuit noted a potential jurisdictional problem: Petitioner's complaint failed to satisfy the well-pleaded-complaint rule for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. All parties insisted that federal jurisdiction was proper. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, and reversed the district court's dismissal to remand the case to state court. View "Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Efren Neri-Garcia sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for restriction on removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (the CAT). Years ago he was mistreated by government actors because of his homosexuality. At issue was whether conditions in Mexico, with respect to the treatment of gay men, changed sufficiently to overcome the presumption that he would be at risk were he to return. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA: the IJ determined there had been fundamental changes with respect to the treatment of gays in Mexico such that Petitioner's life or freedom would not be threatened if removed to that country. The BIA appropriately considered whether the evidence of new incidents of violence against gay men was sufficient to justify a remand. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to remand. View "Neri-Garcia v. Holder" on Justia Law

Denise Ann Vigil appealed a twelve-month prison sentence imposed she received earlier this year following a series of revocations of probation or supervised release. Appellant argued her sentence was unreasonable because, although she “remained unmotivated throughout her term of supervised release,” and had a “propensity to misstate the truth,” those characteristics do “not constitute ‘severe’ or ‘exceptional’ behavior.” The Tenth Circuit affirmed: "her argument conveniently fails to recognize how her behavior has compounded her circumstances - -a teaching moment apparently lost. . .The first judge used a carrot, encouraging her rehabilitation through participation in programs; her behavior remained unchanged. The second judge dangled another carrot, to no avail. He then used a stick, imposing incarceration followed by supervised release; still no change. The attempts to “provide the defendant with . . . correctional treatment in the most effective manner” utterly failed. . . All that was left was to impose 'just punishment' for her most recent breach of trust." View "United States v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Storey brought civil rights claims against police officers after they arrested him at his home during an investigation of a report of a loud domestic argument. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether the officers had probable cause to order Plaintiff to step outside his home and arrest him when he refused to do so, and if exigent circumstances or community safety concerns could support the seizure to facilitate further investigation. Upon review, the Court concluded the officers lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify the arrest, and the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment did not apply. The Court therefore reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Storey v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Federal inmate Defendant Travis Denny sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to allow him to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court ruled that his motion was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Most of Defendant’s challenges to that ruling were "routine," but he raised a novel claim based on the AEDPA provision that delays the start of the limitations period until "the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence." He argued that he should be given additional time because he discovered the pertinent facts only by exercising extraordinary diligence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit granted a COA on the timeliness issue but affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Denny" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Clarice Sanchez, a long-time secretarial employee of the United States Forest Service, suffered irreversible brain damage after falling at work. As a result of her injury, Sanchez lost the left half of her field of vision. She requested a hardship transfer to Albuquerque where she could better access ongoing medical treatment. After the Forest Service declined to accommodate her request, she brought suit under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and held that Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her disability. On appeal, the Forest Service urged the Court to affirm summary judgment on an alternative ground. However, the Court declined, concluding that transfer accommodations for the purpose of medical treatment or therapy were not unreasonable per se. View "Sanchez v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

The Constitution Party of Kansas, Curt Engelbrecht, and Mark Pickens sued the Secretary of State of Kansas, in his official capacity, alleging that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights are violated by the Secretary's refusal, consistent with Kansas law, to keep track of Kansas voters' affiliation with the Constitution Party because the Constitution Party is not a recognized political party under Kansas law. In the district court, the parties stipulated to a Joint Statement of Facts and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ruled for the Secretary, determining that Kansas's system of tracking party affiliation did not unconstitutionally burden the plaintiffs' rights. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied controlling Tenth Circuit precedent in evaluating their claim, and that under the proper analytical criteria, reversal is warranted. The Constitution Party did not contend that summary judgment was improper due to a lack of evidence in the record to support the Secretary's legal argument. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no merit to the Constitution Party's argument and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Constitution Party of Kansas, et al v. Kobach" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Justus Rosemond appealed his conviction for using a firearm during a federal drug-trafficking offense. The United States charged Defendant with that offense under alternate theories, alleging that he was the principal and, alternatively, that he aided and abetted a cohort who fired the weapon. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the trial court properly instructed the jury on these alternate theories and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. View "United States v. Rosemond" on Justia Law