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

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Roberto Jackson sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challege a district court's dismissal of his unauthorized second or successive petitions for habeas relief for lack of jurisdiction. In 2003, Petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court on one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment on each count, the terms to be served concurrently. On direct appeal the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions and sentences. Petitioner pursued state post-conviction relief, but the OCCA affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief.In 2007, Petitioner unsuccesfully petitioned for habeas relief. In 2011, he filed a second petition to challenge his convictions. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner contended that the district court should have transferred his petition to the Tenth Circuit instead of dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct in dismissing Petitioner's second habeas petition. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Eric Phillips applied for a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. After pleading guilty in Oklahoma state court to two counts each of first degree murder and unauthorized removal of a dead body, Petitioner was sentenced to life. He did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise pursue direct appeal of his conviction. In late 2009, a state district court held a hearing to review Petitioner's sentence, but denied his request for modification. A member of Petitioner's family found him an attorney to challenge the outcome of the 2009 hearing. The attorney told Petitioner he believed Petitioner had a viable habeas claim, but miscalculated the filing deadline. Unable to actually prepare the claim himself, the attorney assisted Petitioner to file the habeas petition pro se. Petitioner filed the claim, but it was denied by the court as time-barred. Petitioner argued he was entitled to equitable tolling for the attorney's miscalculation. Finding that an inmate was entitled to statutory tolling of the limitations period when a properly filed application for post-conviction relief was pending, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner's application was indeed improperly filed. He was not therefore entitled to equitable tolling. The Court dismissed his application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

A jury convicted Lindsey Springer of one count of conspiring with Oscar Stilley to defraud the United States, three counts of tax evasion, and two counts of willful failure to file a tax return. Mr. Stilley was convicted of one count of conspiracy and two counts of aiding and abetting Mr. Springer’s tax evasion. The district court sentenced both men to fifteen years in prison, three years of supervised release, and restitution for tax losses exceeding $2 million. Mr. Springer and Mr. Stilley (Defendants) respectively challenged their convictions and sentences. Mr. Springer founded "Bondage Breakers Ministries" to offer legal and tax advice to individuals embroiled in tax disputes for which he was paid thousands upon thousands of dollars. He eventually met Mr. Stilley (now a disbarred lawyer) and together they devised a scheme to channel Mr. Springer's unreported income through Mr. Stilley's client trust account. "By 2005, Mr. Springer had gained the full attention of the IRS." The government executed a search warrant of Mr. Springer's residence, and Mr. Stilley was served with a grand jury subpoena. During the course of the investigation, Defendants denied receiving any income for their advice, representing instead that people simply made donations to Mr. Springer’s ministry, with no expectation of services in return. But at trial, the government refuted those statements, offering testimony from numerous witnesses who had paid large sums of money to defendants in exchange for their supposed tax and legal expertise. Based on this and other evidence, the jury convicted Defendants on all counts to which Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court. The Court affirmed Defendants' respective convictions and sentences.

In 1999, Christopher Sullivan learned through a business acquaintance, Robert Weaver, acquired all interests in a particular oil and gas lease. The then-current operators of the wells on the lease, QEP Energy, made regular payments to Mr. Sullivan for several years. In early 2006 QEP determined that the total payments to Mr. Sullivan by all operators on the lease exceeded his interest in the leases. QEP therefore ceased further payments and sought reimbursement of the overpayment from Mr. Sullivan. He disputed the claim, asserting that QEP owed him additional payments. QEP brought this action in Utah state court, seeking a declaration of the amounts due Mr. Sullivan. It also sought recovery from Mr. Sullivan for the alleged overpayment. Both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment on their claims for declaratory relief. The district court held that the terms of Mr. Sullivan's interest (from when he acquired the original interest in the lease) unambiguously described he should have only received a three percent production-payment. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of QEP, and dismissed Mr. Sullivan's claims with prejudice. Mr. Sullivan appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's analysis of the leases in question and affirmed its decision in favor of QEP.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Darren Brad West sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of two methamphetamine-related charges. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment. Petitioner appealed his sentence, asserting that the district court erred in using U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c)(2), instead of 2D1.11, to set his offense level; and (2) the district court erred in determining the amount of methamphetamine that could be produced from the manufacturing materials found with him when he was arrested. Rejecting these assertions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied relief. Petitioner did not appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to modify, correct, and/or reduce his sentence contending that (1) he was actually innocent of the imposed sentence because it was improperly enhanced under 2D1.1. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not present evidence that he was entitled to a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

Following a determination that Defendant George Koufos had a prior conviction for a crime of violence, a district court sentenced him to a total term of 76 months’ imprisonment for two firearms offenses and two bank fraud offenses. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it considered his 1990 conviction for a 1986 escape from custody as a "crime of violence" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that while awaiting arraignment after his 1986 arrest, Defendant escaped custody at the courthouse. The district court reasoned "it must be assumed as matter of fact as part of the language of [the Information] that there are people who are armed and who are there to prevent escape. So why isn’t that a powder keg ready to explode when somebody attempts to escape?" The district court concluded Defendant's conduct presented a serious potential risk of injury to another and was, therefore, a crime of violence. Upon review of the applicable case law, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's escape "could have easily ended in a confrontation leading to violence." Accordingly, the Court agreed with the district court's conclusion that Defendant's 1986 escape was indeed a crime of violence, the Court affirmed the calculation of his sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Damon Hunter appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence gathered from a vehicle in which he was traveling. In 2009, a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper pulled Defendant over pursuant to a "TOPS" initiative in which troopers would watch for highway safety issues through a semi-trailer truck equipped with cameras. The trooper explained to the occupants of the vehicle, with Defendant (in the passenger seat) and Alice Isaacson (the car driver), that he had pulled them over for driving too closely behind the semi. Further investigation would reveal that the car Defendant was riding in was a rental with an expired contract, and that Defendant intended, but neglected to extend the rental period. The trooper asked Defendant whether there was anything illegal in the car, but Defendant and Ms. Isaacson exchanged looks and said nothing. The trooper then asked whether he could search the car. Ms. Isaacson handed the keys to the trooper, and he searched the car. Ultimately the car was impounded because police found thirty-five pounds of marijuana, a kilogram of cocaine and a weapon inside. Defendant was indicted on possession and intent-to-distribute drugs charges, as well as firearms charges. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence found in the car, and later entered a conditional guilty plea for which he was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on multiple grounds, notably that (1) the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle for following too closely; (2) Defendant's detention was impermissibly prolonged and not reasonably related to the justification for the stop; and (3) Ms. Isaacson did not have authority, apparent or otherwise, to give consent to search the car. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit "easily" concluded that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.

In this interlocutory appeal, Defendants Medtronic, Inc. (and several of its subsidiaries) appealed a district court's denial of their motion to compel Plaintiff Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation (LM) to arbitrate its antitrust claims against them even though none of the Defendants signed the distribution and licensing agreement containing the arbitration provision. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that even if LM's antitrust claims either expressly or implicitly alleged collusion between subsidiary Medatronic Danek USA and one or more of the other Medtronic subsidiaries, they were not "intimately founded in or intertwined with" the obligations in the agreement at issue in this case. "In sum, equity does not demand that LM be compelled to arbitrate its antitrust claims against the Medtronic Defendants. The district court therefore did not err in denying the Medtronic Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration."

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Jakub Lonski appealed a district court's dismissal of his "motion for adjustment of sentence pursuant to a habeas petition." Petitioner claimed Canadian citizenship and was being held in New Mexico. He was convicted of a federal drug-related offense in California and sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment. He argued that because of his alien status rendering him ineligible for certain drug-treatment programs and residential re-entry programs made his sentence was harsher than ones imposed on citizen-prisoners. The Tenth Circuit found that district court correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to alter a sentence imposed by another court unless Congress had expressly authorized such action. On appeal, however, Petitioner changed his argument. Before the Tenth Circuit, he claimed that he should have been given a hearing so that he could complete deportation proceedings while in prison so that he could be immediately deported on release. The Tenth Circuit declined to consider Petitioner's new arguments, and affirmed the district court's denial of his motion.

Petitioner Kevin Winchester sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Petitioner raised three issues on direct appeal: (1) his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated when the trial court permitted the introduction of the victim’s petition for a protective order; (2) the judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first degree heat of passion manslaughter; and (3) the sentence imposed was excessive. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. Petitioner then filed an application for post-conviction relief with the Oklahoma district court, raising five claims of error. With the exception of allegations of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, the court concluded Petitioner's claims were barred from post-conviction review because he was attempting to re-argue issues already raised on direct appeal or issues that could have been raised on direct appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner had not made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights. The Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.