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

Defendant-Appellant Joe Lee Ybarra was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm and ammunition after a former conviction of a felony, possession of fifty grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, all of which the government charged as occurring "on or about January 15, 2010." He was sentenced to 180 months followed by eight years’ supervised release. Before and during trial, Defendant pursued a motion in limine to exclude evidence that he sold methamphetamine one or two days before the charged offenses; the district court ultimately denied that motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court should have excluded the evidence under Rule 403 and/or Rule 404(b), Fed. R. Evid., and that the evidence was not inextricably intertwined with a charged crime. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence to be admitted. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court.

Plaintiff Joseph Zbegner appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice his claims against Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (Allied) as not ripe for adjudication. Plaintiff was in an automobile accident in Boulder, Colorado in 2007. At that time he had an automobile insurance policy with Allied, which included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. In his complaint against Allied, Plaintiff alleged that he suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and sustained damages exceeding $150,000. He claimed the driver of the other car was the person at fault in the accident, but was underinsured. Allstate paid Plaintiff $351.74 for property damage and offered him $2,145.00 to settle his injury claim. Plaintiff did not accept Allstate’s offer and did not resolve his claim against the driver. After Allied declined his claim, Plaintiff filed this action. Allied moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claim, asserting it could not know the amount due Plaintiff for UIM benefits until he had resolved his claim against Allstate, the driver's insurer. Because his claims were contingent on a future event, Allied contended they were not ripe for adjudication. The district court granted Allied’s motion, and dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff contended the district court misconstrued Colorado law in its ripeness analysis. After careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was correct in its analysis of Colorado law, and that Plaintiff's claim was not yet ripe for review.

Plaintiffs Osler and Georgia Childress appealed a district court's order that dismissed their 42 U.S.C 1983 medical-indifference case against Defendant Robert Harms. In 2006, Mr. Childress was staying at a hotel in Midvale, Utah when a motel clerk saw him staggering around his room and running into things. She called police and reported that an intoxicated guest was causing a commotion. Police arrived on the scene and arrested him. Upon Mr. Childress's arrival at the jail, nurses Robert Harms and Joel Smith examined him while he was handcuffed to a gurney. Mr. Childress denied drinking and answered questions about his military duties without difficulty, although his speech was slightly slurred. Authorities would later learn that Mr. Childress has suffered a cerebellar stroke while in custody which was originally dismissed as intoxication. The district court determined that Nurse Harms merely misdiagnosed Mr. Childress and dismissed his claims by summary judgment. On appeal, Mr. Childress argued that the district court "confuse[d] knowledge of harm with knowledge of the risk of harm." The Tenth Circuit concluded that Mr. Childress failed to establish the subjective component of "deliberate indifference," and as such, summary judgment was appropriately entered on his claim.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Xavier Arriola-Perez sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his habeas petition. Defendant was convicted on two counts related to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine in 2003, for which he was sentenced to 400 months' imprisonment. In 2007, Defendant filed a motion to extend the time for filing his habeas petition which was granted by the district court. Late that year, Defendant filed his petition, then filed a Rule 15(a) motion seeking leave to amend. The district court found that his proposed amendments did not relate back to his original habeas petition, and were deemed untimely. Construing the 15(a) motion as a motion for leave to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief, the district court transferred the motion to the Tenth Circuit while denying Defendant relief. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgement. Defendant then petitioned the Court for a COA, arguing the district court erred in treating the Rule 15(a) motion as a successive petition for post conviction relief, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in defending himself on the possession and distribution charges. Finding no substantial showing that his constitutional rights had been denied, the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's request for a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

After Defendant Gilberto Cruz-Arellanes was sentenced for illegally reentering the country, the Sentencing Commission issued an amendment (Amendment 740) to the illegal reentry guideline. The amendment discusses when and under what conditions a district court might wish to depart downward due to a defendant’s cultural assimilation. Seeking the benefit of this new guidance, Defendant filed a motion for a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in not applying the amended sentencing guidelines. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order and Defendant's sentence.

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Kartiganer appealed two district court orders that ultimately dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against several law enforcement members. In 2006, Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop in Walsenburg, Colorado. Evidence was seized during the stop, including financial instruments belonging to individuals other than Plaintiff. Based on the seized evidence,the district attorney's office decided probable cause existed to file felony charges against Plaintiff. A public defender was assigned to Plaintiff's case, who promptly filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop. The court found no probable cause, and the DA's office dismissed the charges. Plaintiff sued alleging he had been falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and subjected to malicious prosecution for five months before the charges were dropped. A federal magistrate granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit carefully reviewed the "lengthy and thorough" decisions by the magistrate judge, as adopted and modified by the district court. The Court agreed completely with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein, and affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing the claims in this case.

Pro se Petitioner-Appellant Troy Short sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. A Colorado state jury convicted Petitioner on one count of second degree burglary and one count of theft. On direct appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA), Petitioner asserted the trial court erred when it refused to appoint substitute counsel. In particular, Petitioner asserted he was entitled to substitute counsel based on a complete breakdown in communication with existing counsel. The CCA rejected Petitioner's claim of error, concluding the record fully supported the trial court’s determination that communications between Short and his counsel had not broken down and that perceived friction on the part of Petitioner did not hinder counsel’s ability to adequately present the case to a jury. The Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari review. Because Petitioner did not make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," the Tenth Circuit denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Petitioner-Appellant Mikeal Stine sought to challenge a district court's calculation of his sentence. He argued that the sentencing court mistakenly designated him a career offender based on two prior escape convictions. Petitioner's strategy to challenge his sentence was to challenge the underlying legality of his sentence rather than how it was executed, a tactic which he tried before and lost at the district court. Petitioner thus brought his appeal before the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.c. 2255(e), the statute's so-called "savings clause" which would have allowed him to bring his second or successive motion for post-conviction relief under section 2241 when 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the savings clause was inapplicable to Petitioner's case, and held that the district court thus properly held Petitioner's effort to invoke section 2241 impermissible, and correctly dismissed his petition.

Plaintiff-Appellant Amby Elkins was denied social security benefits, and appealed the Commissioner's rejection of her claims. She said she suffered from degenerative disc disease, rheumatoid arthritis, tendinitis, and depression. The combination of these conditions, she argued rendered her essentially incapable of performing any work. An administrative law judge, however, rejected Plaintiff's petition. On the basis of medical evaluations by independent physicians, he concluded that Plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of her impairments was not credible. She appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit declined to overturn the ALJ's findings of fact, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant-appellant Dennis Enriquez Lopez-Avila was charged with unlawful re-entry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Defendant entered a guilty plea after reaching an agreement with the prosecution. The district court rejected Defendant's request for a sentence below that calculated under the advisory guidelines and sentenced him to thirty-seven months' imprisonment. Defendant argued on appeal that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erroneously concluded that it could not consider the disparities created by the existence of fast-track programs when determining his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant presented a "generalized argument" which alone is not sufficient to justify a variance from the sentencing guidelines because of different sentencing guidelines for fast-track programs. Therefore, the Court rejected Defendant's claim of error and affirmed the district court's decision.