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

After developing pain in his neck and shoulders, Petitioner Gordon George was diagnosed with cancer in 2003 and underwent surgery and radiotherapy. During his recovery, he continued to experience pain spanning from his neck to his shoulder and arm. Petitioner applied for disability and supplemental security income benefits. After many and various hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that for the period June 1, 2003 through July 31, 2005, Petitioner was disabled during that period. But the ALJ further found that Petitioner's condition improved dramatically over time and that by August 1, 2005, he no longer met any disability listing. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner raised several challenges to the ALJ's determination that he suffered no legally cognizable disability after August 2005. Upon review, the Court rejected all those challenges, and affirmed for substantially the reasons given by the district court, with one exception. The Court found that the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether, after August 1, 2005, Petitioner suffered from a mental disability. In our case, by contrast, the ALJ has not made any factual findings "one way or the other" about the existence, severity, or functional limitations, if any, imposed by Petitioner's mental condition: "[i]t's entirely possible the ALJ on remand will find Mr. George's mental health issues have no impact on his ability to work." The Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond Boswell appealed the denial of his applications for Social Security benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in March 2007. He alleged that he had been unable to work since December 1, 2006 because of degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, and problems with his back, neck, arms, hands, shoulders, and liver. His applications were denied at the administrative level and on reconsideration. The district court accepted the recommendation of a magistrate judge that the Commissioner’s denial of benefits be affirmed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner's and district court's decisions: "[Petitioner] asks this court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. We are without the authority to do so."

Defendant-Appellant Michael Fleming challenged his conviction and sentence by direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit. A jury convicted Defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The United States Probation Office's presentence report recommended a two-level enhancement on Defendant's offense level for obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant objected to the enhancement. The district court rejected his arguments and concluded that his conduct had "a tendency to obstruct justice and certainly created risks to the witnesses and concerns on their part." The court sentenced Defendant to 240 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Defendant argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments at trial and thereby violated his right to a fair trial. He also argued that the district court erred by applying the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the prosecutor's statements during closing argument did not warrant reversal of Petitioner's conviction. Furthermore, the Court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement to his sentence for obstruction of justice.

Pro se Plaintiff John Yancey appealed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. While Plaintiff was incarcerated in a detention center operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), he filed a "1983" complaint against CCA and its employees. The complaint in that case claimed Plaintiff "was unlawfully denied access to religious call-out and religious materials" during his incarceration. The district court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by statute. Before filing the complaint in this case, he was released from confinement. Plaintiff's civil rights complaint alleged a "conspiracy" among defendants prison and court officials to "manipulate cases against [CCA]." The district court reasoned the complaint contained nothing more than "conclusory allegations" without any meaningful factual support. Agreeing with the district court's conclusion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.

Defendant-Appellant Brian Williams appealed his 97-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. His counsel filed an "Anders" brief for leave to withdraw. Along with his plea agreement, Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to proceed to trial, and was properly advised of the consequences of his plea. Nevertheless, he sought to challenge his sentence. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, the Tenth Circuit granted Defendant's counsel to withdraw and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Albert Vaughan was convicted of one count of bank robbery and one count of use of a firearm during a crime of violence. His convictions arose from the robbery of the First Bank of Kansas in Salina, Kansas in 2004. At trial, over Defendant's objection, the district court allowed testimony concerning a prior bank robbery committed at the Bank of Colorado in Grand Junction, Colorado approximately two weeks earlier. The district court also admitted, again over Defendant's objection, an apology letter Defendant wrote after his arrest for the Salina robbery. Defendant appealed arguing both pieces of evidence were improperly admitted. Although the admission of the apology letter was error, the Tenth Circuit had "no grave doubt as to whether its admission had a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial." The Court affirmed the decision of the district court.

After being indicted for assault causing bodily injury to an employee of a federal high-security penitentiary engaged in the performance of his official duties, Defendant-Appellant Mark Denny pled guilty and was sentenced to forty-two months' imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court found that the guideline calculations in Defendant's PSR were correct, including the classification of Defendant as a career offender. Despite that, the court accepted his guilty plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to forty-two months, in accordance with the agreement. The government filed a motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal because he failed to establish any ground entitling him to one. Defendant responded that because his plea agreement provided for a sentence "of no more than 42 months," it was not a "specific sentence" for the purposes of the applicable statute, and therefore he was not bound by that statute. "[I]n the extremely strange factual situation of this case," the Tenth Circuit followed "the usual rule when there is a valid Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement" and thus conclude it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Zeno Sims appealed a district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. Petitioner was serving a 235-month sentence at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth for distributing cocaine base. After his time in Leavenworth, he was scheduled to serve time in Missouri for a thirty-year state sentence for murder. The federal court held Petitioner's federal sentencing hearing two weeks before the state court held its sentencing hearing, and the federal court stated that Petitioner's federal sentence would run concurrently with the state sentence which had not yet been imposed. The state court, disagreed and imposed a consecutive sentence. When the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) attempted to transfer Petitioner to state custody so that he could begin serving the sentences concurrently, Missouri refused to take custody until he completed his federal sentence. Petitioner asked the Tenth Circuit to issue a nunc pro tunc order to the BOP to force it to transfer him to the custody of Missouri so that he could serve his state sentence concurrently with his federal sentence, in accordance with the federal court order. The Tenth Circuit found that Defendant's request was actually the second time he requested post-conviction relief, and because he raised no new claims nor made an attempt to argue that earlier court proceedings did not provide him with a full and fair hearing on the merits. The Court concluded the district court was correct to dismiss Petitioner's petition.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Ramon Rivera sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief as untimely. In 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement Rivera pled no contest to unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute. He was sentenced 15 years imprisonment. Rivera did not timely appeal, but later sought state post-conviction relief. The Oklahoma district court dismissed his petition and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Proceeding pro se, Petitioner filed for habeas relief. He contended he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and he did not voluntarily, intelligently or knowingly waive his right to a jury trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner filed his petition one year after his conviction became final. The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

After Plaintiff-Appellant David Cook brought his pro se "1983" action against prison officials, the district court found his complaint legally deficient and ordered him to amend it. Instead of amending the complaint, Plaintiff filed "motion after motion seeking…discovery and the appointment of counsel." The district court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond, and the court dismissed his complaint. He appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit who affirmed the dismissal: "[t]he simple fact is that no litigant, even a pro se litigant, may repeatedly disregard a court’s orders without inviting the lawful possibility that his case might be dismissed."