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

Defendant-Appellant Fernando Onofre-Javier appealed the district court's imposition of a twelve month sentence for his violation of supervised release, which was to run consecutively to a fifteen-month sentence he received for illegally reentering the United States. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued the twelve-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. Finding that Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his sentence.

Following a routine traffic stop, police charged Defendant-Appellant Mark Williams with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. After the district court denied his motion to suppress, he was tried and found guilty on both counts for which he was sentenced to 80 months' imprisonment. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Upon careful review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Trinity Mortgage Companies, Inc. (Trinity) appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of David Dryer and Dryer and Associates, P.C. (Dryer). Trinity, formerly a mortgage brokerage company owned by Shawn Cremeen, entered into a franchise agreement with 1st Class Lending, Inc., which was owned by Dennis Junker and Richard Gheisar. In April 2007, Junker sued Gheisar and Trinity in Oklahoma state court for breach of contract, fraud, defamation, and conversion, all concerning his alleged wrongful termination. Between May 2007 and April 2008, Dryer represented Trinity, without a written contract. In October 2007, while the lawsuit was pending, Trinity entered into an agreement to sell most of its assets and to stop originating loans. Meanwhile, after Trinity failed to file an answer in the pending lawsuit, Junker moved for a default judgment against Trinity. Because Dryer failed to object to entry of default judgment against Trinity, the state court granted the motion against Trinity in January 2008. The another firm replaced Dryer as Trinity’s counsel, who unsuccessfully sought to vacate the default judgment against Trinity. Cremeen and Junker eventually entered into a settlement agreement concerning the lawsuit. Trinity confessed a final judgment in favor of Junker but the only recovery of this amount would be through his ownership interest in Trinity, which was the action against Dryer. Trinity moved for partial summary judgment on its malpractice and breach of contract claims. Dryer moved for summary judgment, contending that all claims were barred as a matter of law because Trinity unlawfully assigned them to Junker. In response, Trinity argued that there had not been an assignment of tort causes of action; there was never any collusion between Trinity and Junker; and that the malpractice case was not contingent upon disproving the merits of the underlying suit against Trinity. The district court granted Dryer’s motion for summary judgment and denied Trinity’s motion for partial summary judgment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dryer.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Edward Shigemura appealed the denial of his motion for the return of seized property. In 2009, Defendant was pulled over by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, who searched the car he was driving and found, among other things, five loaded handguns, a rifle, and $62,368.93 in cash. Defendant was arrested, indicted, and later found guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms. Before trial, the federal government obtained a seizure warrant for the $62,368.93 as money furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. Defendant received notice of the administrative seizure, which included information on how and when to contest the forfeiture, and how and when to file for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture. Defendant did not file a claim to contest the forfeiture, and the FBI issued a Declaration of Forfeiture. Defendant did not appeal the declaration, but filed for remission or mitigation which was ultimately denied. Over a year later, Defendant sought the return of a portion of the money he claimed was his, plus other personal property seized at the time of his arrest. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant failed to challenge the forfeiture through the administrative process. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant failed to contest the forfeiture of the cash. But the government conceded that certain items of personal property were not included in the forfeiture action, and might be recoverable. The Court remanded the case to the district court to consider the legal and factual issues relating to Defendant's claim.

Petitioner-Appellant Terry Doyle filed a section 2254 application to challenge his conviction and sentence in Oklahoma state court. The district court denied the application, so he turned to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial. A jury found Petitioner guilty of felonious possession of a firearm after formerly convicted of two felonies. Petitioner was sentenced to 50 years. Petitioner obtained new counsel and unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentence to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. In his appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel "unrealistically promised" an acquittal, failed to impeach the arresting officers, failed to challenge the sufficiency of the other evidence, and for failing to challenge the admission of certain evidence at trial. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that there were no errors at trial, and that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Chris Brownfield sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's decision to deny his petition for habeas relief. In 1987, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated battery and aiding and abetting felony murder. He received a life sentence for the felony murder conviction and a concurrent term of five to twenty years for the aggravated battery conviction. In 1989, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated battery, for which he received a consecutive sentence of ten to forty years’ imprisonment. In 2006, the Kansas Parole Board considered Petitioner for parole but passed him to April 2009. Petitioner contended he was entitled to conditional release under Kansas law, but this was rejected by the Board and state courts. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner argued he had a constitutional due process right to good-time credits and conditional release which was rejected by the district court as meritless. The Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a COA for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Cesar Chacon sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's decision to dismiss his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The court construed the motion as an unauthorized second or successive motion for post-conviction relief. In May 2008, Defendant pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy and one count of possession with the intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of marijuana. He was sentenced to 151 and 60 months of imprisonment respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Tenth Circuit dismissed his direct appeal as lacking a meritorious appellate issue. Subsequently, Defendant filed a section 2255 motion, asserting that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to challenge the conspiracy charge; (2) failing to recommend sentencing leniency; (3) failing to pursue a two-point reduction pursuant to sentencing guideline § 3B1.2(b) for minor participation; (4) failing to show Defendant his presentence report; and (5) failing to challenge his career offender status. The motion was ultimately denied, and Defendant filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion re-asserting claim (4) concerning his role as a minor participant. The court again denied relief, and Defendant applied for a COA from the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly dismissed Defendant's Rule 60(b) motion and denied his request for a COA.

Petitioner Compass Environmental, Inc. challenged a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) which found a serious safety regulation violation and assessed a $5500 penalty against it. Specifically, the Commission held that Compass failed to train a now-deceased employee to recognize and avoid an electrocution hazard presented by a high-voltage overhead powerline at his worksite. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Compass argued that the Commission failed to apply the correct legal test and erred in concluding that a reasonably prudent employer would have anticipated this employee's potential exposure to the power line. "Although Compass might not have been able to predict the manner in which [the employee] would have been exposed to this hazard," the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in holding that Compass should have trained the employee on the fatal danger posed by the high-voltage lines located in the vicinity of his work area. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision.

Appellant Gerald Wayne Snow, Sr., pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit and four counts of wire fraud. The district court sentenced him to concurrent ninety-month sentences on each count. Appellant appealed the district court's sentences, contending it erred in the methodology it used in calculating the reasonable estimate of victim loss attributable to him. He also appealed his sentences on grounds the district court erred in imposing two-level enhancements for his leadership role in the fraud scheme he perpetrated and use of a sophisticated means in carrying out that scheme. Finding that the district court did not commit clear error in its factual findings or in its deferential application of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Appellant's sentences.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dana Franklin appealed a district court's order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her application for Social Security disability benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability based on degenerative disc disease, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety and depression. The agency denied her applications initially and on reconsideration. Applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework, and and considering the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised two issues: (1) the ALJ erred by by failing to evaluate properly the opinions of her treating physician; and (2) the ALJ’s analysis of her credibility was contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence. Upon review, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate reversible legal error or lack of substantial evidence in the ALJ's treating-physician analysis. Furthermore, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff's credibility was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.