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

Defendant-Appellant Juan Manuel Cardenas-Mireles pled guilty to the offense of illegal reentry after deportation. At sentencing, he moved for a downward variance notwithstanding an adult criminal record involving 44 convictions and four deportations. The district court denied the motion, instead sentencing Defendant at the top of the applicable guidelines range. Defendant appealed his sentence on two grounds: (1) the district court committed procedural error by relying on an impermissible sentencing rationale to lengthen his sentence (namely, that remaining incarcerated was in Defendant's own best interests due to his health and mental state); (2) his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a sentence within the guidelines, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions.

Appellant Taissiya Oleyniikova , an employee of the State of Colorado's Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Information Tenchology Services brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages against the DHS' executive director and some of the agency's employees (Defendants). Appellant challenged the grant of summary judgement in favor of DHS. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff emailed a supervisor stating that she felt "insulted" by another co-worker, because that co-worker accused her of lying. Over the next few months, Plaintiff sought a promotion within her department, but claimed that this attempt was thwarted. Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of her right to freedom of speech. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's ruling on the retaliation claim only. Finding that Plaintiff's statements were not on a matter of public concern, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Defendant-Appellant William Freeman appealed his conviction on a one-count indictment for bank robbery. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, he challenged his conviction, contending that (1) the evidence of guilt was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the district judge erred in refusing to issue a jury instruction addressing the credibility of accomplice testimony; and (3) the district judge erred in declining to grant a mistrial after the defense uncovered an alleged discovery violation by the prosecution during re-direct examination of an FBI agent who investigated the case. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that each of Defendant's arguments on appeal were meritless. The Court affirmed the district court's decisions and Defendant's conviction.

Plaintiff-Appellant Olivea Marx appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee General Revenue Corporation (GRC). Plaintiff defaulted on her student loan. GRC was hired by her lender to collect on the account. Plaintiff sued GRC alleging abusive and threatening phone called in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court, after a one-day trial in May 2010, found that the challenged collection practices were not abusive and threatening given its view of what actually occurred. Plaintiff did not appeal these findings, instead she contested the court's conclusion that a fax sent to her employer asking about her employment status did not violate the FDCPA's provision against debt-collector communications with third parties. Finding that the district court did not error in its decision made in her case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's order.

Plaintiffs-Appellants George and Georgia Diamond filed an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor Scott Bakay alleging that Bakay fraudulently induced them to loan him money. The bankruptcy court entered summary judgment in favor of the Diamonds and declared the loan nondischargeable, but denied the Diamonds' postjudgment motion for prejudgment interest. The Diamonds appealed the latter decision, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit (BAP) affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. Finding no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the postjudgment motion for prejudgment interest.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Rupert Trujillo appealed a district court's dismissal of his application for habeas relief. Petitioner pled guilty to drug charges in New Mexico and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment in 2009. He did not file a direct appeal. Instead, he filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to challenge the validity of his conviction on the grounds that he was not competent when he pled guilty. The government moved to dismiss. Upon review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in this case, the Tenth Circuit found that regardless of whether Petitioner filed his application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 or 2255, in the absence of tolling, Petitioner failed to meet the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court denied the writ and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Cayetano Sanchez sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Petitioner pled guilty to four counts involving possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and a mixture of cocaine, possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes, and re-entry of a deported alien. He was sentenced in 2006. As part of his guilty plea, Petitioner waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. The district court determined that several claims fell within the scope of the waiver and were validly waived, but did consider other claims (which might undercut the waiver) involving ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the district court erred by: (1) failing to rule on his motion to compel production of his case file; (2) failing to address an argument relating to sentencing; and (3) failing to cite to record evidence in discussing Petitioner's plea. Finding that Petitioner did not make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional rights," the Tenth Circuit denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Keith Hendrix entered entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute in Excess of 50 Grams of Methamphetamine and one count of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a search of his motel room. The district court concluded the search was supported by probable cause, and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the motel room. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly determined the warrantless entry and subsequent search of Defendant's motel room was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, and affirmed Defendant's conviction.

On a summer evening in 2005 a sniper shot down a police helicopter over Albuquerque. Police would implicate Plaintiff Jason Kerns, but after charges were filed, investigation would reveal that the bullet that brought down the helicopter could not have come from any of the firearms or ammunition Plaintiff owned, nor from the direction of his home. Plaintiff sued several members of the Albuquerque Police Department, alleging they had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his house on the night of the helicopter crash. He then sued the local sheriff, arguing the sheriff's efforts to obtain his psychiatric records violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights. Plaintiff also sued other members of sheriff's department, accusing them of false arrest and malicious prosecution. All defendants moved for dismissal on immunity grounds, which was denied. Defendants appealed. Upon careful review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant-Appellant James Moser was convicted by a jury on several counts of bankruptcy fraud and sentenced to 121 months' imprisonment. He appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that several counts of the indictment were multiplicitous, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on one of the counts. Defendant and his wife filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. He failed to disclose a lease agreement and the sale of certain tools and collectibles to third parties to the bankruptcy trustee. The attorney who worked with Defendant on his petition testified that at the time of the discharge of his debts, there continued to be confusion regarding Defendant's assets, "partially due to his unwillingness to be forthright." Finding that based on the evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could have found Defendant guilty of bankruptcy fraud, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.