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

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Sione Hoko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Huish Detergents, Inc. on his Title VII and state-law civil rights claims. Plaintiff worked for Huish from 1989 until he was terminated in 2005. His law position was a Supervisor in the "Raw Material Department." An internal audi report showed that from June 12 through June 22, 02005, Plaintiff repeatedly visited non-work related internet sites for extended periods of time during his workday. He was terminated based on excessive amounts of time he spent on the internet. Finding that Plaintiff was an "at-will" employee, and that he failed to provide any evidence of a hostile work environment, disparate treatment or that Huish terminated him in retaliation for complaining about discrimination, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Huish. View "Hoko v. Huish Detergents, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Randell David Lonjose pleaded guilty to one count of engaging in a sexual act with a minor in Indian Country, and was sentenced to 51 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. As part of his plea agreement, Defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence. The United States Probation Office (USPO) later filed an ex parte petition seeking to modify Defendant’s conditions of supervised release to include two additional special conditions. On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court erred in granting the USPO’s motion as to one of the conditions. Defendant argued that the condition prohibiting him from having contact with any child under the age of 18 without prior written permission of his probation officer was overly broad because it intruded on his right to freely associate with his family and lacked a compelling justification. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the appellate waiver in Defendant's plea agreement did not preclude the filing of this appeal, and reversed the district court's imposition of conditions on Defendant's supervised release. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the scope of the condition so that it "reasonably relate[d back] to Defendant's offense." View "United States v. Lonjose" on Justia Law

Respondent Alena Berridge relocated to Denver, Colorado from the Czech Republic with her two children. Subsequently, Petitioner Max Joseph Lesler, Respondent’s ex-husband and father of the children, filed a petition seeking return of the children to the Czech Republic pursuant to the Hague Convention and ICARA. In this appeal, the issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Court could grant any meaningful relief when the district court granted a petition for the return of children based not on a finding of wrongful removal, but instead on the parents' stipulation that the children would return to the country of habitual residence for a custody hearing. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held this action was moot, resting on the fact that the district court made no finding of wrongful removal, and not on the basis of the children's then-current location. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the district court's opinion was vacated. The case was remanded for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Leser v. Berridge" on Justia Law

Petitioners Anschutz Company and Philip and Nancy Anschutz appealed a Tax Court decision to hold them responsible for substantial income tax deficiencies for the taxable years 2000 and 2001. Those deficiencies, the Tax Court concluded, resulted from their failure to recognize taxable gain when a subsidiary of the Anschutz Company entered into a series of related agreements that included a variable prepaid forward contract for the sale of certain shares of stock and accompanying share-lending agreements. Finding no error in the Tax Court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Anschutz Company v. CIR" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Adrian Mata Rodriguez appealed a district court order that dismissed his challenge to the legality of his conviction for possession and distribution of methamphetamine, illegal possession of a firearm, and unlawful reentry. In early 2010, Defendant sold methamphetamine to a police informant in Kansas City, Kansas. Defendant argued that the case against him was based on information from an untested informant who was trying to escape prosecution himself, and therefore unreliable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant incorrectly brought his action under 28 U.S.C. 2241 instead of section 2255. The district court did not err in failing to construe Defendant's petition as a 2255 motion because it was left to the discretion of the district court to do so. View "Mata Rodriguez v. United States" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry Wayne Smith appealed a district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) officials. Plaintiff was incarcerated from 1998 to September 2002. In May 2002, he filed the action against the defendants in state court. That action was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to pay costs. In November 2005, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against the defendants in federal court. That action was dismissed with prejudice for his failure to prosecute the case in an orderly and timely fashion. During the pendency of the 2005 action, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case in September 2007. His claims arose during his incarceration in the KDOC and the bulk of the allegations relate to events from 1998 through 2002. The district court sua sponte considered the timeliness of Plaintiff's complaint before it was served on defendants, and concluded that the applicable limitations period for bringing all of Plaintiff's claims was two years. Before dismissing the action, the district court reviewed Plaintiff's response to its show cause order and then dismissed the case with prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's reasoning in dismissing Plaintiff's case, and affirmed its decision. View "Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jonearl Smith was charged with possession with intent to distribute of five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. The grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Defendant with possession with intent to distribute of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine several months earlier. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a guilty plea to all counts charged in the superseding indictment. The plea agreement did not prohibit the government from bringing additional criminal charges against him for the conduct giving rise to the criminal charges to which he pled guilty. Defendant was sentenced to 150 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. One year later, Defendant was charged in another superseding indictment, this time in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendant was convicted on counts two and twenty-eight, and acquitted of count twenty-nine of the RICO indictment, and sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment. While the RICO case was pending, Defendant filed a motion in this case to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. A panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the district court granted Defendant's motion on the ground that his attorney failed to fully advise him of the consequences of entering a guilty plea. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on the the Double Jeopardy clause after the court set the case for a new jury trial. Finding that there were no issues decided in the RICO case that were identical to any issue in his possession case, the Tenth Circuit concluded collateral estoppel did not bar prosecution on Defendant's drug charges. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant Jorge Eraldo Aispuro-Aristegui pled guilty to conspiracy and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. His plea reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant did not challenge the district court's factual findings. Rather, he argued that there was no probable cause because drug enforcement agents (1) knew only that Defendant came to the bus station to give a third-party a ride ("a completely innocent and legal activity"), and (2) had no reason to trust that third-party and therefore had no reliable information linking him with Defendant in illicit activity. The Tenth Circuit was not persuaded, and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Aispuro-Aristegui" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Allen Russell appealed a district court's order that denied his "Motion to Vacate the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)(6) (FRCP), and Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d), and, or, Alternatively, Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint." Plaintiff filed his pro se civil rights complaint against "a plethora" of business, attorney and judicial defendants arising out of the foreclosure of real property he held in Colorado. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that his claims were repetitive of claims previously asserted in two cases that had been resolved against him. Finding that Plaintiff did not raise a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on law or facts in support of the issues he raised on appeal, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's case. View "Russell v. Financial Capital Companies" on Justia Law

Claimant Debra Ann Luttrell appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. Claimant challenged the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that the ALJ did not perform: (1) a proper determination at step five; (2) a proper analysis of the medical source opinions; and (3) a proper credibility determination. Finding that the ALJ's decision was free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Luttrell v. Astrue" on Justia Law