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

Defendant-Appellant Glenn Damato appealed his 96-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He argued that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs by including as relevant conduct a drug transaction that occurred more than thirteen years prior to what he was convicted of in this case. The government argued that the old transaction was part of the "same course of conduct." Upon reivew, the Tenth Circut could not agree with the government’s argument: "the thirteen-year interval at issue far exceeds the gap between relevant conduct and the charged offense in the case law of any circuit including our own. Further, that extreme lack of temporal proximity was not mitigated by strong evidence of regularity or similarity." Nevertheless, the Court exercised its discretion to consider an alternative basis to affirm, and concluded that the prior transaction qualified as relevant conduct because it and the current conviction were part of a "common scheme or plan." With that, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Damato" on Justia Law

Defendant Casimiro Loya-Rodriguez appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He contended the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself both at trial and at sentencing. Upon review, the Tenth circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction because he failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself at trial. But the Court remanded the case to the district court to vacate his sentence and then resentence him because he did make such a request to represent himself at sentencing. View "United States v. Loya-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jonathan McGehee was found guilty by jury of possessing with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed his conviction and sentence arguing that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop where police discovered narcotics and a firearm; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that he possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense; and (3) the district court erred by denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. McGehee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant, World Publishing Company, publisher of the "Tulsa World" newspaper, appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee the United States Department of Justice. Resolving various pretrial motions, the district court held that Tulsa World had standing, denied it discovery, and concluded that the United States Marshals Service properly withheld six booking photographs ("mug shots") requested by Tulsa World through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. On appeal, Tulsa World argued that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for summary judgment and denying it discovery so that it might better respond to that motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed its judgment in favor of the DOJ. View "World Publishing Company v. United States Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Tenth circuit centered on what level of deference (if any) must be afforded to a local governmental entity's proffered plan to remedy an adjudged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973), when that proposed remedy unnecessarily conflicted with state law. The Court surmised that when such plans in effectuating their remedial purposes do not adhere as closely as possible to the contours of the governing state law, they are not eligible for the deference customarily afforded legislative plans. Consequently in this case, the Court affirmed the district court's order that rejected the Fremont County Board of Commissioners' proposed remedial plan, and held under settled Supreme Court precedent that strongly favors single-member districts in court-ordered plans, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedial plan solely consisting of single-member districts. View "Large v. Freemont County" on Justia Law

Two appeals arose out of a lawsuit filed against New Mexico state officials that sought declaratory and injunctive relief to redress alleged violations of New Mexico’s obligations under Sections 7 and 5 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq. The Section 7 claim was resolved on summary judgment, with the district court concluding that the Defendant officials responsible for overseeing New Mexico’s Human Services Department (HSD) violated the NVRA by failing to provide voter registration forms to those applicants for public assistance who left the Section 7-mandated declination form blank. The Section 5 claim, which alleged that New Mexico’s motor vehicle authority offices failed to provide necessary voter registration services, was resolved by written settlement agreement. Although two of the settling agencies reimbursed Plaintiffs for a portion of the attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiffs incurred in litigating the Section 5 claim, the New Mexico Secretary of State refused to contribute. Plaintiffs subsequently sought and were granted attorneys' fees and expenses related to the Section 5 claim against the Secretary of State. In Appeal No. 11-2063, Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Section 7 claim. In Appeal No. 11-2084, the Secretary of State appealed the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and expenses arising out of the Section 5 claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects. View "Valdez v. Duran" on Justia Law

A confidential informant purchased controlled substances from Defendant Willie West in controlled buys. Some of these purchases occurred at Defendant's apartment in Lawrence, Kansas, which was within 1000 feet of Holcom Park. A grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of possessing marijuana within 1000 feet of a public playground with an intent to distribute, and one count of maintaining a place within 1000 feet of a public playground for the purpose of distributing marijuana. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Holcom Park was a statutory "playground" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. secs. 841(a) and 860(a). At the close of the Government's case, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to establish that Holcom Park was a "playground." The district court denied Defendant's motion. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. In denying Defendant's subsequent motion for a new trial, the district court referenced the Government's argument that "[e]ven if the jury found the [jungle gyms] constituted one apparatus, . . . the . . .baseball diamonds, volleyball courts, and Holcom’s other amenities are each apparatus intended for the recreation of children." Defendant appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. West" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Abram Venzor-Granillo appealed the district court’s application of an eight-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He argued the district court erred by using the modified categorical approach to conclude his prior Colorado conviction for first degree criminal trespass was a theft offense, warranting the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly applied the modified categorical approach because the Colorado statute under which Defendant was convicted was ambiguous: it reached a broad range of conduct, some of which merit the enhancement and some of which do not. The charging document and plea agreement underlying Defendant's prior conviction revealed he admitted all the elements of the generic offense of attempt to commit theft. Therefore, the district court did not err in imposing the sentence enhancement. View "United States v. Venzor-Granillo" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Raul Rosales-Garcia pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 37 months. On appeal Defendant challenged his sentence, alleging that the district court incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed the district court's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Rosales-Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Fedwa Khalik appealed the district court's decision that dismissed her Title VII employment discrimination case for failing to state a claim. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant United Air Lines in 1995, rising to the position as "Business Services Representative" before she was terminated in 2009. She claimed she was terminated because of her race, religion, national origin and ethnic heritage. She also brought a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. More than two months after Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and three weeks after the deadline to amend pleadings had passed, Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint. The district court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend as futile and untimely and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim. The district court also exercised pendent jurisdiction and dismissed the state law discrimination and retaliation claims as similarly not plausible. Upon appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court used a "heightened" standard of proof in making its determination that she had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that "While the 12(b)(6) standard does not require that Plaintiff establish a prima facie case in her complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether Plaintiff has set forth a plausible claim." The Court found that Plaintiff's general assertions of discrimination and retaliation, "without any details whatsoever of events leading up to her termination, are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. View "Khalik v. United Air Lines" on Justia Law