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

Plaintiff-Appellant Stuart Guttman, MD had a history of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. His medical license was "qualified" by the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners, which subjected him to quarterly psychiatrist reports and other conditions. The Board removed the qualifications in 1995. Several years later, the Board began receiving complaints about Plaintiff. The Board reviewed Plaintiff's conduct in his practice, and in 2000, the Board summarily suspended Plaintiff's medical license after finding "clear and convincing" evidence that having Plaintiff continue his practice would be an "imminent danger to public safety." In 2001, after recognizing an extensive pattern of disruptive and abusive behavior in dealing with patients and healthcare professionals, the Board revoked Plaintiff's license. The question presented in this appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Eleventh Amendment protected New Mexico from a suit for money damages under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff challenged the Board's findings in state court, asserting that the Board's actions violated Title II of the ADA. The State court refused to consider Plaintiff's claim, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Eleventh Amendment indeed protects New Mexico from suit on sovereign immunity grounds. Accordingly, the Court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's ADA claim. View "Guttman v. Khalsa, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Felipe Ruiz conditionally pled guilty to possessing with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, he contended the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized from a rented airplane. Defendant's arrest stemmed from a 2010 flight he made from New Mexico and Kansas. Suspicions arose with the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), and after further investigation, it found that Defendant had not filed a flight plan for "marginal weather," and that an airplane carrying drugs had landed in Kansas six months earlier. AMOC contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who along with officials from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation went to investigate at the hangar in which the plane landed. Officials detected cocaine in the plane and arrested Defendant for possession. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the arrest warrant as having omitted critical information and stated "affirmative falsehoods." Because the information omitted from the affidavit was immaterial to the magistrate's probable cause determination, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the airplane. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

In 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a state constitutional amendment that would prevent state courts from considering or using Sharia law. Members of the state election board asked the Tenth Circuit to review whether a federal district court abused its discretion when it granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the Board from certifying the result. Plaintiff Muneer Awad sued the Election Board to prevent the certification of ballot title "SQ 755" from the November 2, 2010 election. Plaintiff is an American citizen residing in Oklahoma, and is the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Plaintiff alleged that SQ 755 violated his rights under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. He objected to the amendment's singling out his religion for negative treatment. The district court granted a temporary restraining order on November 9, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted a preliminary injunction one week later. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Board argued that Plaintiff's claims were not justiciable, and even if Plaintiff's Establishment or Free Exercise claims were justiciable, each failed to meet preliminary injunction requirements. Upon careful consideration of the district court record and the constitutional questions posed by the parties' briefs, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff's claims were justiciable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on those claims. View "Awad v. Ziriax, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant International Bancshares Corporation (IBC) appealed the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee MCC Management of Naples (Colliers). The Colliers sued for breach of contract and fraud in a dispute over tax benefits. The dispute arose over the parties' disagreement over the entitlement to $16 million in benefits that accrued over a period of years in Local bank. Brothers and investors Miles and Barron Collier owned Local at the time the tax benefits arose. IBC now owns the bank. Local bought troubled loan assets. An agency (now the FDIC) guaranteed the value of the assets. In return, Local had to "share" some of its profits. When Congress repealed the deductions Local claimed on the losses from the assets, Local stopped paying its share from those assets and sued in federal court. The FDIC counterclaimed for non-payment. The Townsend Group had purchased Local Bank from the Colliers while the lawsuit was pending. Townsend required the Colliers promise to indemnify Townsend/Local in the event the FDIC won the lawsuit for more than the potential liability in the suit. Local eventually settled the suit for approximately $25-27 million. Townsend/Local and the Colliers signed a Resolution and Modification Agreement from which the Colliers claimed entitlement to the aforementioned tax benefits. Furthermore, through the "excess basis deduction," Local claimed a deduction on principal payments made to the FDIC and for attorney's fees. In addition to the dispute over the tax benefits, Local's former "tax director" quit over what she believed was the bonus owed to her for discovering the excess basis deduction. She began consulting for the Colliers and notified them of the millions in deductions that Local claimed. IBC counterclaimed against the Colliers, and added third-party claims against the former tax director for breaching confidentiality and tortious interference with contract. The Colliers and tax director prevailed after a jury trial. IBC appealed, arguing it was entitled a judgment as a matter of law. But after review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's findings at trial. View "MCC Mgmt of Naples v. International Bancshare " on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Marcellous Ander Roebuck sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge his conviction and sentence on the grounds he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Petitioner pled guilty in Colorado state court to several felonies, and was sentenced to 83 years in prison; he did not appeal. Following an application for state post-conviction relief, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion with the district court, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court found that Petitioner waived some of those claims in his plea agreement. The court disposed of Petitioner's other claims on the merits. Finding that he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal. View "Roebuck v. Medina" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Lynn Scott sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. In 2000, Petitioner was convicted in Colorado state court on two different drug counts and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), plus a five-year period of mandatory parole. In 2004, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a two-year period of parole, respectively, for convictions on two charges of attempted escape. In 2006, the Colorado Board of Parole granted Petitioner early release to parole and ordered the mandatory five-year parole to start in 2007. Later that year, a parole complaint was filed, alleging that Petitioner had violated numerous provisions of his parole, including absconding from parole supervision. Petitioner's parole was revoked, and he returned to the DOC to serve his revocation time. Over the next several years, Petitioner would commit new crimes, violate the terms of his parole, have it revoked, be reincarcerated, and granted new periods of parole. The cycle stopped in 2010 when Petitioner brought this habeas action to challenge the validity of one of his 2007 disciplinary convictions. The Warden, as Respondent, did not assert any affirmative defenses, but moved the court to dismiss the matter as moot. The district court dismissed the case as moot, denied habeas relied and denied a COA. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found "no debate" as to whether Petitioner's claims were moot. "No reasonable jurist would conclude otherwise." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal. View "Scott v. Warden of the BVCC" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Drew Bates appealed his conviction on cocaine possession charges. He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the court did not err in its decision to deny Defendant's motion, and that there was substantial evidence to support his conviction. Furthermore, the Court did not find that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in his case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Bates" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Defendant James Duran sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his "Rule 60(b)" motion for reconsideration of his previously denied motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of violating federal drug and firearm laws. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions on appeal, concluding that neither the issues raised by counsel nor the issues raised by Defendant in a pro se brief had any merit. Defendant thereafter filed a motion under section 2255, raising seven grounds for relief with seventy-six subissues. The district court denied Defendant's 2255 motion on the merits; the Tenth Circuit subsequently denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed the matter. Subsequently, Defendant filed three motions in the district court: (1) to set aside the court's order denying 2255 relief; (2) to have all legal correspondence stamped in red ink as legal mail; and (3) to disqualify or recuse the presiding district judge. After the district court's denial of his motions, Defendant sought a second COA to appeal from the district court's last order. Finding that "reasonable jurists also could not debate the district court's decision to dismiss the claim," the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal. View "United States v. Duran" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Daniel Schulz appealed his conviction following his guilty plea for distribution of fentanyl resulting in death. His counsel filed an "Anders" motion. Although the crime to which Schulz pled guilty carries a twenty-year minimum sentence, the government moved for a downward departure, recommending a sentence of ten years. Defendant successfully moved for a further departure, resulting in a sentence of 96 months' imprisonment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found it was not presented with any meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, the Court granted counsel's request to withdraw and dismissed this appeal. View "United States v. Schulz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Ute Indian Tribe challenged three amendments to the articles of incorporation of Defendant Ute Distribution Corporation (UDC). UDC represents former members of the tribe and jointly manages assets with the Tribe's leadership. Perceiving a takeover threat from the Tribe, the UDC board of directors proposed (and the shareholders adopted) the amendments in question, which prohibited persons affiliated with the Tribe from serving on the board. The Tribe sued, arguing the amendments violated Utah state law. The district court granted summary judgment to the UDC. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the amendments were reasonable as a matter of law, and that the UDC board of directors did not violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in proposing the amendments or adopting them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of UDC's motion for summary judgment. View "Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Ute Distribution Corp." on Justia Law