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

Defendant-Appellant Tracy Harris was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) of conspiracy to commit a racketeering offense in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and sentenced to 188 months in prison. On appeal, he challenged the substantive correctness of the jury instructions on the elements of section 1962(d) conspiracy; the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of that crime; the failure of the district court to issue a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of withdrawal; and the substantive and procedural reasonableness of his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: (1) that the existence of an enterprise is not a required element of section 1962(d) conspiracy; (2) alternatively, even if the Government was required to prove the existence of an enterprise, there was sufficient evidence to show that the various gang sets in this case constituted an association-in-fact enterprise under :Boyle v. United States," (556 U.S. 938 (2009)); and (3) that Defendant failed to present evidence that he had withdrawn from the alleged conspiracy sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on that defense. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Corey Cornelius was charged with four counts of federal racketeering- and drug-related offenses in 2008 in the District of Kansas along with nineteen codefendants in a thirty-count indictment. A jury convicted Cornelius in 2009 of one count of conspiracy to commit a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The jury could not reach a verdict on the fourth count against Cornelius, charging racketeering under RICO. The district court sentenced Cornelius to 210 months' imprisonment in 2010. Both Cornelius and the Government appealed aspects of the district court's order. Cornelius argued that (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction on any of the counts under which he was convicted; (2) the district court erred by instructing the jury pertaining to the RICO charges; (3) the district court erred by giving the jury an 'Allen' instruction after the jury advised the court that it was deadlocked on certain counts; (4) the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of duress; (5) Cornelius was denied his right to trial by an impartial jury, in light of an allegedly bias-indicating letter that a juror handed to the prosecution after trial; and (6) Cornelius's sentence was unconstitutional, contrary to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, and based upon an improperly considered prior conviction. The Government cross-appealed with regard to Cornelius's sentence, arguing that the district court erred by failing to impose the statutorily applicable twenty-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment required for his crack-cocaine conviction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Defendant's arguments on appeal and affirmed his conviction. The Court agreed with the Government that the district court erred by failing to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence in this case, and therefore vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Cornelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Pennie Keyes-Zachary appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying her applications for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability based on, among other things, neck, back, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, and knee problems, accompanied by pain; hearing loss; urinary frequency; anger-management problems; depression; and anxiety. The ALJ upheld the denial of her application for benefits. The Appeals Council denied her request for review of the ALJ's decision, and she then appealed to the district court. The district court remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration. After the second hearing, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions, but that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council declined jurisdiction, and the ALJ's decision was then deemed the Commissioner's final decision. On appeal Plaintiff raised two issues: (1) that the ALJ "failed to properly consider, evaluate and discuss the medical source evidence;" and (2) the ALJ "failed to perform a proper credibility determination." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the ALJ's decision and affirmed the Commission's final determination in Plaintiff's case. View "Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Federal prisoner Rufus Shines sought authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive 2255 motion to challenge his sentence. On appeal, he argued that the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Dorsey v. United States" (132 S.Ct. 2321 (2012)) and its application of the Fair Sentencing Act's lower mandatory minimums for sentences like his applied to pre-Act offenders. In relevant part, the FSA eliminated the mandatory minimum five-year sentence that was applied to Mr. Shines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied to authorize the successive motion: "Mr. Shines relies on 2255(h)(2), claiming that 'Dorsey' announced a new rule of law. However Dorsey did not announce a new rule of constitutional law." View "In re: Shines" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Tim DeChristopher entered a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and gas lease auction in Salt Lake City, Utah, by representing he was a bidder. His purpose was to disrupt the auction and call attention to the potential environmental harms of drilling on the leases. He proceeded to drive up the auction prices and ultimately won almost $1.8 million in bids, for which he was unable to pay. A jury convicted Defendant of interfering with the provisions of Chapter 3A of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and making a false statement or representation. He appealed, raising eight separate issues related to his conviction. Upon review of each, the Tenth Circuit determined they had no merit and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. DeChristopher" on Justia Law

Brothers James and Marlin Butler sold guided deer hunts to out-of-state hunters, providing lodging, meals, and guiding services. On several occasions, they encouraged their clients to violate state hunting laws. Both pled guilty to conspiring to sell and transport poached deer in violation of the Lacey Act. The district court concluded that the value of each deer was the total amount that a client paid to participate in the guided hunt. Based on this determination, the court sentenced the Butlers to several years’ imprisonment, required that they pay substantial fines and restitution to Kansas, and imposed special conditions of supervision prohibiting both men from hunting, fishing, or trapping wildlife. The Butlers appealed the district court's valuation method and their sentences based on that valuation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the value assigned to loss of wildlife must reflect the actual value of the animals involved, the district court erred in conflating the value of the deer with the full price of a guided hunt. The Court also concluded that the district court improperly imposed James Butler’s special conditions of supervision without considering whether those conditions would interfere with his lawful employment. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the Americans with Disabilities Act created two separate-but-overlapping causes of action for employment discrimination. Plaintiff-Appellant Judy Elwell worked for Defendant-Appellee University of Oklahoma for years in an administrative role. She began to suffer from a degenerative spinal disc condition which did not prevent her from performing the essential functions of her job. Nevertheless, she sought certain accommodations from her employer. She alleged that the University refused to grant those accommodations and ultimately fired her, allegedly because of her disability. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, holding that Title II did not provide a cause of action for discrimination, and that Oklahoma did not waive its immunity from suit under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). The Tenth Circuit affirmed: "[i]n this case, those traditional tools of statutory construction - including a close examination of the text together with a careful review of the larger statutory structure . . . persuade us that Congress has spoken and spoken clearly to the question of employment discrimination claims and placed them exclusively in Title I. . . . Because Title II does not contain an independent cause of action for employment discrimination and because Ms. Elwell [could not] carry her burden of showing a waiver of sovereign immunity that might permit her to proceed with an OADA claim, the judgment of the district court [was] affirmed." View "Elwell v. Bd. of Regents Univ. of Okla." on Justia Law

Avaya Inc. ("Avaya") appealed a district court's ruling compelling arbitration of its labor dispute with the Communication Workers of America ("CWA") over the legal status of a class of Avaya employees called "backbone engineers." The union viewed the backbone engineers as non-represented "occupational" employees and legitimate objects for its organizing campaigns, while Avaya saw them as managers outside the scope of the company's labor agreements. CWA contended the parties' collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") required any dispute over the status of backbone engineers to be resolved in arbitration. Avaya maintained the parties did not consent to arbitrate the status of its backbone engineers and accused CWA of trying to unilaterally enlarge the CBA to encompass disputes over company management. Having reviewed the CBA and the evidence submitted to the district court, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Avaya's position and reversed the district court's order compelling arbitration. View "CWA v. Avaya, Inc." on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Applicant David Woodward sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court dismissed the application as untimely. Applicant's principal argument was that the limitations period for filing the application had not yet expired because the state court had yet to rule on a postconviction discovery motion that he filed in 1994. Because the Tenth Circuit held that a postconviction discovery motion does not toll the limitations period for filing a 2254 application, the Court denied the application for a COA and dismissed the appeal. View "Woodward v. Cline" on Justia Law

Dr. George Cohlmia, a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area, sued St. John Medical Center (SJMC) alleging a number of federal and state antitrust and business tort claims. His claims followed SJMC's suspension of his medical privileges after a pair of surgeries, one resulting in death and another in permanent disfigurement. In response, SJMC asserted an affirmative defense that it was immune under federal law from damages pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). SJMC also moved for summary judgment on the antitrust and tort claims, arguing they failed for lack of evidentiary support. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims, finding SJMC was immune from damages under the HCQIA, and further that Dr. Cohlmia had not met his burden of showing disputed facts that would demonstrate anticompetitive conduct or injury. After a thorough de novo review of the record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment. View "Cohlmia, Jr. v. St. John Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law