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

A federal jury convicted Defendant Chester Randall, Jr. of conspiracy to participate in a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization The district court sentenced Defendant in May 2010. Defendant’s prior convictions yielded six criminal history points. The sentencing guidelines imposed an additional criminal history point because Defendant "committed the instant offense less than two years after release from imprisonment" on a qualifying sentence. The district court sentenced Defendant to 46 months, the low end of the applicable guideline range. Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal from Defendant’s conviction and sentence within the fourteen-day filing period. Meanwhile, Amendment 742 to the sentencing guidelines took effect in November 2010. Amendment 742 eliminated recency points. Three weeks later, Defendant filed a pro se "Motion to Modify Sentence Pending Appeal." Defendant argued that Amendment 742 should be applied retroactively to reduce his sentence to 37 months. The district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion because his notice of appeal from his conviction divested the court of jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if no appeal were pending, it would have no authority to reduce Defendant’s sentence because "[a] guideline amendment is applied retroactively only when it has been specifically listed" in the sentencing guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court was correct in its analysis that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Defendant's appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant Mayra Carrera was a trimmer in a Tyson meat processing plant in Kansas. One day, four of her co-workers made sexual gestures toward her by "moving and shaking their hips." When Plaintiff complained, a manager immediately spoke to the co-workers. No further incidents occurred, but Plaintiff felt ostracized by employees keeping their distance. Plaintiff asked for a transfer to another plant. Despite the transfer, Plaintiff filed suit alleging a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to Tyson. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred by focusing only on the gesturing incident and ignoring the fact that afterward her co-workers ostracized her. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did consider this aspect of Plaintiff's claim "correctly observing that standoffish, unfriendly, and unapproachable behavior" was insufficient to establish an objectively hostile work environment.

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Terry Gibbs appealed a district court's order that reversed the administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and remanded the case to the agency under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Plaintiff argued that the district court abused its discretion by remanding for further proceedings when it should have simply granted his "Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law" and awarded him benefits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the remand was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

Plaintiff-Appellant Anita Luster, an employee of the United States Forest Service, appealed a district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff, a full-time Visitor Information Specialist (VIS) with the Forest Service, claimed that: (1) she was not selected for a Forestry Technician position because of her gender; (2) she suffered disparate work conditions because of her gender and in retaliation for her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination complaint; and (3) a Forest Service attorney inappropriately disclosed her EEO complaint information in violation of the Privacy Act. The Tenth Circuit "commend[ed] the district court for its thorough and well-reasoned order granting the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment" and affirmed, finding no error in the court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.

An Oklahoma state jury found Defendant George Ochoa guilty of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. After exhausting his state post-conviction remedies, Defendant petitioned the federal district court for habeas relief. The district court denied the petition in an "extensive" order. Defendant then appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Defendant raised five alleged errors from his trial that he maintained warranted habeas relief. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the majority of Defendant's claims were foreclosed by the court's decision that denied habeas relief to Defendant's co-defendant. Taking each of his issues in turn, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the lower courts' decisions or denial of post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the federal district court's order that denied Defendant habeas relief.

Petitioner Abidan Gedioni Pacaja Vicente, a Guatemalan citizen, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that affirmed the Immigration Judge's (IJ) removal order against him. Both denied his claims for asylum, restriction on removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At the IJ hearing, Petitioner testified that he was afraid of guerrilla violence against himself and his family in his home country dating as far back as 2002. The IJ first concluded Petitioner's asylum application was untimely and further determined that Petitioner had not established extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. In an alternative ruling, the IJ denied Petitioner's petition because he failed to establish a nexus between the 2002 event and either a political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The BIA affirmed on the latter ground. Upon review of the IJ and BIA record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof to overcome the removal order against him. The Court denied Petitioner's request for review.

Plaintiff Timothy J. Smith appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment for his employer, Defendant Morton International, Inc., (Morton), on his claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court held Smith’s claim failed at the prima facie case stage for two distinct reasons: he had not shown either that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA or that Morton had discriminated against him on the basis of his alleged disability. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of his alleged disability, and affirmed on that basis without reaching the discrimination issue.

Defendant-Appellant Mario Casas-Tapia is a citizen of Mexico who lawfully immigrated to the United States with his parents when he was six months old. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, but he lost that status following his criminal convictions while a teenager. In 1998, at the age of eighteen, he pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and first-degree criminal trespass, an aggravated felony, and was deported. His immediate family remained in the United States. After living in Mexico for five years, Defendant returned illegally and resettled near his family. Since returning, he has been convicted of several misdemeanor and felony offenses. In 2010, he pled guilty to unlawful reentry of a removed alien subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. In the presentence report, the probation officer calculated the sentencing range at thirty to thirty-seven months and recommended a sentence at the high end of the range based on Defendant's criminal history. Defendant moved for a below-guidelines sentence based on cultural assimilation. The court imposed a thirty-month sentence. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court failed to recognize the scope of its legal authority to apply a downward departure for cultural assimilation. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court's denial was discretionary, the Court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Appellant Philip Allen Worack, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that resulted in his conviction of two counts of filing fraudulent and false federal income tax returns. For tax years 1998-2002, Appellant reported income from LKS, a company in which he was president and treasurer, and owned half the stock. LKS listed Appellant's income on its 1099 forms for his personal income taxes. During that time period LKS set up multiple foreign-based business entities that Appellant helped manage. Once the entities folded, Appellant assumed the assets and used them to pay for his personal expenses. He did not report any of the money taken from the liquidated companies' bank accounts as income. Appellant argued that the money from the entities were corporately owned, and the monies paid were for his business related expenses. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty. The Court affirmed Appellant's convictions.

Defendant-Appellant, The Siebel Living Trust Dated 7/27/93 (Trust), appealed a district court’s order denying the Trust’s motion to recover its attorney fees and costs pursuant to a real estate sales contract with Plaintiff-Appellee Michael J. Ward (Ward). In addressing the question of whether the Trust or Ward was the "prevailing party" (and thereby entitled to recover reasonable fees and costs under the contract), the Tenth Circuit followed Colorado law to review the competing claims of the parties to the contract. Although Ward recovered the commission he sought, he did not recover against the Trust. The Trust was successful defending itself from Ward's claims brought against it and, therefore, as between Ward and the Trust, the Trust prevailed. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.