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

Petitioner Zhi Wei Pang illegally entered the United States in 1993 from the People's Republic of China. Months after he arrived, he unsuccessfully applied for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed he suffered economic and emotional persecution due to his resistance to Chinese population control policies. But because the economic penalties imposed on Petitioner did not rise to the level of past persecution, the Board of Immigration Appeals recommended Petitioner's removal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and denied Petitioner's petition for review. View "Pang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Eugene Sunday appealed the computer and mental health conditions of the supervised release portion of his sentence for bank fraud and uttering counterfeit securities. Among his arguments on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant contended that the computer possession and use conditions were unjustified by the record and constituted an occupational restriction imposed without findings required by the Sentencing Manual. He also argued that the mental health evaluation and treatment conditions were unsupported by the record and were unconstitutional. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that because Defendant was a computer repairman "which obviously requires direct contact with various computers," the computer was not the only tool he used to commit his crime. The computer restriction as written, affected Defendant's substantial rights. Because the Court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of the occupational restriction on Defendant's sentence, the Court did not address Defendant's challenge to the mental health evaluation. View "United States v. Sunday" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kerry Raina Bryant appealed her conviction for theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Choctaw Indian lands. She entered a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. She was sentenced to a two-year probation, and ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute under which she was charged (18 U.S.C. 1168) did not apply to her because she was not a casino employee, and that 18 U.S.C. 2 did not apply because it punishes illegal acts against the "United States," and the Choctaw tribe is "not the United States." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant committed her crime with her sister, who was a casino employee, and the applicable statute declares Defendant a "principal" for aiding and abetting theft by a casino employee. Furthermore, the Court found Defendant's crime was against a "a gaming establishment licensed by the National Indian Gaming Association that sits on territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Plainly, there was a crime against the United States." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Elvin Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper violated his constitutional rights in 2007 during a traffic stop that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest and eventual conviction for possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. In addition to the trooper's motion to dismiss, the district court determined that the claims set forth in Plaintiff's amended complaint were barred by the statute of limitations. After review of Plaintiff's opening brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff's arguments were inadequate to support his complaint. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the district court in dismissing Plaintiff's case. View "Watkins v. Craft" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Keenan Anthony Lamirand pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. After he served his sentence, he violated the terms of his supervised release, and in 2010, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to thirty days in prison. In addition, the district court also imposed a new term of supervised release. After serving his revocation sentence, Defendant violated the terms of the second sentence of supervised release, which lead the court to again revoke his release and sentence him to an additional year and a day in prison. Defendant appealed, claiming that the district court lacked the statutory authority to imprison him for a period longer than his second term of supervised release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in its sentencing decisions. View "United States v. Lamirand" on Justia Law

In the first time this case came before the Tenth Circuit, the Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellant Microsoft Corporation on Plaintiff-Appellant Stephanie Wallace's breach-of-contract claim, but reversed and remanded her state-law tort claims of wrongful discharge and outrage. In this, the second time the case came before the Court, the issue on appeal was the district court's grant of summary judgment to Microsoft, which denied Plaintiff's motion to supplement her amended complaint and to add a wrongful death claim. Plaintiff's husband was a consultant for Microsoft when he fell and was injured on a sidewalk while walking to a company meeting. He was placed on leave for about one month. Microsoft could no longer accommodate his medical restrictions once he returned to work. Microsoft never offered Mr. Wallace alternative employment, and he was never able to provide Microsoft with a medical release allowing him to return to his previous job. After Mr. Wallace had been on medical leave for sixty weeks, Microsoft terminated his employment. Mr. Wallace filed the petition in state court that ultimately gave rise to this case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's decision that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of fact upon which she had the burden of proving Microsoft caused the torts she alleged. View "Wallace v. Microsoft Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Jean Mathia is the widow of Doyle Mathia, who was a limited partner in Greenwich Associates. Greenwich was a partnership that incurred losses that were passed through to the couple’s income tax returns for the years 1982–84. After an investigation of numerous related tax shelters, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed these losses. Petitioner was assessed more than $150,000 in taxes following lengthy administrative and judicial proceedings involving the partnership. Petitioner appealed to the United States Tax Court to challenge the assessments as untimely, and to assert that the government bore the burden of proof in establishing timeliness. The Tax Court denied the appeal. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner contended the tax assessments were untimely because the relevant statute of limitations had run. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner's contention turned on whether Mr. Mathia entered into a settlement agreement under the tax code that resolved his partnership tax liability on an individual basis. The Court agreed with the tax court that he entered into no such agreement which would have qualified under the tax code as a settlement of Mr. Mathia's liability as an individual partner. Therefore, the Court concluded the assessments were timely and properly applied by the IRS. View "Mathia v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Michael Maestas, Thomas May, Juanito Marquez and Jahmaal Gregory were all officers in a private security force that protects Los Alamos National Laboratory. They contended that their employer, Day & Zimmerman, LLC and SOC, LLC, (collectively, SOC) improperly classified them as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA). The district court found that Plaintiffs were exempt executive employees and granted summary judgment to SOC. The parties disagreed over which of Plaintiffs' job duties was "primary." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that such a dispute presented a question of fact rather than an issue of law. Furthermore, the Court held that an employee who supervises subordinates while also conducting front-line law enforcement work performs a non-managerial task. Because there remained a genuine dispute as to whether three of the Plaintiffs had this task as their primary duty, summary judgment was proper only against Plaintiff Thomas May and improper as to the others. Accordingly, the Court partly reversed, partly affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Maestas v. Day & Zimmerman, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Cornwell brought a wrongful death action on behalf of his wife who died at a railroad grade crossing when the vehicle she was driving hit a locomotive owned and operated by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. Union Pacific moved for summary judgment and also moved to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's four experts based on "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc." (509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The district court granted the summary judgment motion in part and ruled that the testimony of three experts should be excluded. The case proceeded to a jury trial. At its conclusion, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Union Pacific. Plaintiff appealed seeking to overturn the pre-trial rulings. Finding that the district court's ruling was supported by Tenth Circuit precedent and case law from other circuits, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision: "[t]he district court determined that [Plaintiff's experts'] proffered evidence was unreliable under "Daubert" standards: their evidence was speculative and conclusory." The Court therefore affirmed the exclusion of the experts' testimony and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the railroad. View "Cornwell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Joal Goodwin sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. In 2010, Defendant was indicted on a single count of bank robbery. He entered into an agreement to plead guilty to the count charged in the indictment. Defendant's presentence investigation report (PSR) concluded that he was a career offender, and as such, the guideline range for imprisonment was 151 to 188 months. At that time, Defendant did not object to the PSR. Defendant filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the district court either depart downward or vary from the applicable guideline sentencing range. The court sentenced Defendant to 155 months' imprisonment. He then appealed pro se by filing his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence by arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that Defendant failed to satisfy the standards for the issuance of a COA, the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's request and dismissed his appeal. View "United States v. Goodwin" on Justia Law