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

Defendant Carri O. Adams was tried and convicted, with co-defendant Wallace Laverne Lawrence III, on seven counts of wire fraud/aiding and abetting for her role in a scheme using internet ads to defraud persons seeking help in paying bills. The district court imposed a sentence of eighteen months on each count, to run concurrently, followed by two years of supervised release on each count, also to run concurrently, and ordered Defendant to pay restitution. After timely initiation of this appeal, defense counsel moved to withdraw and filed an "Anders" brief explaining why he believed there to be no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit granted counsel's motion and dismissed the appeal.

Two former employees of the Kansas Unified School District #501 filed administrative charges against the District following claims of wage discrimination. Dwight Almond, III and Kevin Weems were both offered and accepted new positions with lesser pay within the District rather than be fired from a District-wide downsizing effort. Both filed their claims in 2006, several years after the alleged pay discrimination took place. The district court held that the men had waited too long to seek administrative review, and that delay had the effect of barring their lawsuits altogether. In the pendency of the employees' appeal of the district court's dismissal, Congress enacted the "Ledbetter Act" specifically aimed at addressing "discrimination in compensation" claims in which members of a protected class receive less pay than similarly situated colleagues. The employees raised multiple claims on appeal, including a violation of the Ledbetter Act. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that because the employees in this case didn't raise an unequal pay for equal work claim, they did not benefit from the Act’s comparatively generous deadlines, so preexisting accrual rules applied. Under those rules, the employees' claims were untimely and accordingly dismissed.

Following a jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Ronald Irving was convicted on one count of witness tampering and for his part in a murder-for-hire scheme directed at killing a local law enforcement officer prior to that officer testifying against him. Defendant also was convicted on one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. Defendant was sentenced to 360 months in prison, followed by eight years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction, raising five claims, which all pertained to errors by the court and prosecution during trial. Furthermore, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him. Upon careful review of the trial court record and Defendant's appellate brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded there was no error in the indictment, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict and the sentence Defendant received, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of the trial. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Meldon Allen sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his unauthorized second or successive motion for post-conviction relief, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner was convicted in 2002 of several drug trafficking crimes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed his convictions on appeal. In 2008, the district court denied Petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief and the Tenth Circuit court denied Petitioner's request for a COA. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court which was denied. Petitioner turned back to the district court to file a "motion to correct procedural default of Rule 32 pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)." The district court concluded that the motion constituted an attempt to file a second or successive motion for post-conviction relief without prior authorization and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court indeed lacked jurisdiction to review Petitioner's motion, and it denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed this appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Robert Battle sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his unauthorized second or successive motion for post-conviction relief, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner pled guilty in 2000 to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender to 210 months' imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed his convictions on appeal. In 2002 Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence which was denied. In 2010, Petitioner filed his second motion with the district court, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court indeed lacked jurisdiction to review Petitioner's motion, and it denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed this appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Kenneth Ballard sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's judgement that denied his habeas application. In 1984, Petitioner pled guilty to multiple counts of robbery with firearms and one count of first degree murder. An Oklahoma state court sentenced him to 75 years of imprisonment for each robbery conviction and to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The state court ordered that the robbery sentences run concurrently, but that the murder sentence run consecutively to the robbery sentences. In 2010, Petitioner was informed he was eligible for a "jacket review" for parole consideration. The Oklahoma Parole Board denied Petitioner parole. Petitioner contended that the Parole Board only considered facts from his murder conviction when it should have only considered his robbery convictions. The Oklahoma courts denied all of his petitions challenging the application of his sentences. After reviewing Mr. Ballard’s appellate brief and application for a COA, the district court’s order and a magistrate’s report and recommendation, and the entire record on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to a COA. Accordingly, the Court denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Alexander Cardenas sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's judgement that denied his habeas application. In his application, he challenged the admission of statements made after a Miranda warning as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right. In 1997, Petitioner called police to report that he had killed his long-time friend in an altercation after a night of alcohol and drug use. Before his confession at the scene, police read Petitioner his Miranda rights. After this, Petitioner made additional statements to the police at the police station. Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in finding his statements to the police were voluntary and that he waived his Miranda rights. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the district court's resolution of his constitutional claim was reasonably debatable. As such, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Petitioner David Cordova sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. A state jury convicted Petitioner of residential burglary and larceny over $2500, and the trial judge sentenced him to fourteen years in prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction, lost, and then filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner raised three claims: (1) prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced his trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of the charges against him; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings, dismissed Petitioner's claims and denied a COA. The Tenth Circuit adopted the magistrate's findings that Petitioner failed to offer sufficient evidence to support his claims. As such, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Raymond Martinez sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. Defendant was wanted on a warrant for escape. During a chase, Defendant displayed a weapon, and he was shot by an officer. A cocaine pipe, cocaine and over three-thousand dollars in cash were found on his person. A jury found Defendant guilty of assaulting a peace officer in addition to possession of cocaine. The state trial court sentenced Defendant to two concurrent 64-year terms for the assault and two concurrent 24-year terms for possession. Defendant appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. It affirmed except that it vacated the conviction for possession of a controlled substance and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions (1) to merge the charge of possession into the charge of possession with intent to distribute and (2) to vacate the 24-year sentence on the possession charge. After the trial court vacated the 24-year sentence, Defendant filed a post-conviction motion for reconsideration of his sentence which was denied. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court's opinion was "thorough and persuasive, and Defendant has not pointed to any flaw in the analysis. No reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court's decision." Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Lynn Scott sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. In the spring of 2000, Petitioner was sentenced in Colorado state court to consecutive terms of imprisonment of ten years and six months. Petitioner was subsequently released in 2007 to serve a five-year term of parole. Approximately three months later, Petitioner's parole was revoked due to multiple violations of his parole agreement. While incarcerated, Petitioner was convicted by prison authorities of possessing an unauthorized legal document. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in the Colorado state courts. In 2011, Petitioner initiated federal proceedings by filing for the writ of habeas corpus asserting that his disciplinary convictions were constitutionally invalid. The district court dismissed the matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. According to the district court, Petitioner failed to properly exhaust his state court remedies. Finding that Petitioner indeed failed to exhaust his state remedies to challenge his sentence and subsequent parole revocations, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.