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

In May 2023, Enrique Martinez-Espinoza was found illegally reentering the United States from Mexico while on supervised release for a prior unauthorized reentry. He pleaded guilty under a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, but the district court rejected the plea because his criminal history disqualified him from the proposed downward departure. The court also revoked his supervised release without a separate hearing, based on the same conduct.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico initially handled the case. Martinez-Espinoza was charged with reentry of a removed alien and pleaded guilty. A petition to revoke his supervised release was also filed. The district court rejected the plea agreement due to his criminal history and proceeded to sentencing without informing him of his rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5). The court also revoked his supervised release without a separate hearing, relying on his admission to the reentry offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court plainly erred by not informing Martinez-Espinoza of his rights under Rule 11(c)(5) but concluded that this error did not affect his substantial rights. The court also determined that the revocation of supervised release was adequately supported by his admission to violating the terms of his supervised release. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Martinez-Espinoza" on Justia Law

In late summer 2018, lightning ignited the Bald Mountain and Pole Creek Fires in remote areas of Utah's national forests. The Forest Service initially decided to monitor and contain the fires, believing they could benefit the forest environment. However, unpredicted high winds caused the fires to expand, leading the Forest Service to shift to full suppression efforts. Despite these efforts, the fires burned approximately 100,000 acres of public and private lands. The Strawberry Water Users Association sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging mismanagement of the wildfires.The United States District Court for the District of Utah held that the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA applied, stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear the claims. The court found that the Forest Service's decisions involved judgment calls grounded in policy considerations, such as firefighter safety and resource management. The Strawberry Water Users Association appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the discretionary-function exception applied because the Forest Service's actions involved policy judgments and were within the scope of its authority. The court noted that the Forest Service's decisions were based on balancing various public-policy interests, including safety and environmental benefits. The court also rejected the argument that the Forest Service acted without authority or violated mandatory regulations, concluding that the agency had the discretion to manage the wildfires as it did. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Strawberry Water Users Association v. United States" on Justia Law

Josh and Mackie were partners in a marijuana business, Culta, LLC, in Maryland. Josh temporarily relinquished his ownership due to concerns about a past misdemeanor affecting their license application, with an agreement to be reinstated later. However, Mackie prevented Josh from rejoining. Josh sued Mackie and Trellis Holdings Maryland, Inc. (Trellis), Mackie’s company, for breach of contract. The district court found Mackie and Trellis liable and awarded Josh $6.4 million in damages. Mackie and Trellis did not appeal or pay the judgment.Josh sought to enforce the judgment. The district court ordered Mackie and Trellis to sell Trellis’s equity in Culta and turn over the proceeds to Josh, and to avoid devaluing the equity until the sale. Mackie and Trellis appealed, arguing for the first time that enforcing the judgment would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and that the district court lacked authority under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 69(g). They also moved the district court to reconsider the original judgment, which was denied, leading to a second appeal. The appeals were consolidated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the original judgment, rejecting Mackie and Trellis’s argument that Josh lacked standing. The court found that Josh had standing as he suffered an injury from the breach of contract, caused by Mackie and Trellis, and the damages awarded were redressable. The court also held that the district court had authority under C.R.C.P. 69(g) to issue the judgment enforcement order, as a charging order was not the exclusive remedy and Mackie and Trellis had sufficient control over Trellis’s equity.However, the Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment enforcement order due to concerns that it might require Mackie and Trellis to violate federal drug laws, and remanded the case for further proceedings to address these public policy concerns. View "Bartch v. Barch" on Justia Law

Dr. Francis Joseph, founder of Springs Medical Associates in Colorado Springs, submitted false applications to federal COVID-19 relief programs between March and June 2020. He received over $250,000 in federal aid, which he concealed from the practice's leadership and used for personal expenses. Joseph was convicted by a jury in 2023 on two counts of fraud.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado oversaw the initial trial. Joseph was found guilty of embezzlement or theft of health care benefit program funds and wire fraud. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison and ordered to pay restitution. Joseph appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent, improper limitations on cross-examination, erroneous admission of expert testimony as lay testimony, improper admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, and incorrect jury instructions. He also challenged the calculation of economic loss under the sentencing guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found ample direct and circumstantial evidence supporting Joseph's intent to commit fraud. It upheld the district court's limitations on cross-examination and exclusion of certain exhibits, finding no abuse of discretion. The court acknowledged an error in admitting expert testimony as lay testimony but deemed it harmless due to corroborating evidence. The court also upheld the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, finding it relevant to Joseph's intent and not unduly prejudicial. The court found no error in the jury instructions and affirmed the district court's calculation of economic loss, including Joseph's first failed PPP loan application as relevant conduct.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Joseph's convictions and sentence were supported by sufficient evidence and proper legal procedures. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The case involves Dianna Murphy, who sued Thomas Schaible, her financial advisor and brother-in-law, for breaching his fiduciary duty. Thomas managed an investment account jointly held by Dianna and her husband Michael. Amidst marital difficulties, Michael instructed Thomas to transfer $2.5 million from the joint account to a bank account in Colorado, which Michael then moved to a Mexican account solely under his control. Dianna was not informed of this transfer and claimed that Thomas failed to protect her interests, despite knowing about the couple's marital issues and her interest in dividing their assets.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado heard the case. The jury found Thomas liable for breaching his fiduciary duty and awarded Dianna $600,000 in economic damages. Thomas filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), arguing that Dianna suffered no legally compensable injury and that he did not breach any fiduciary duty by following Michael’s instructions. The district court denied this motion and awarded Dianna prejudgment interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Thomas breached his fiduciary duty by failing to inform Dianna of the transfer and not advising her on steps to protect her interests. The court also upheld the award of prejudgment interest, rejecting Thomas’s procedural arguments. The court emphasized that fiduciary duties include the duty to inform and act impartially, which Thomas failed to do. The judgment against Thomas was affirmed, and the award of prejudgment interest was deemed procedurally sound. View "Murphy v. Schaible" on Justia Law

On March 2, 2022, Rondell Yokenya Baker was stopped twice by Deputy Lloyd while driving through Wyoming. The first stop was for speeding, during which Baker failed to produce a rental agreement for the car. After issuing a warning, the officer let Baker go but suspected drug trafficking. About 50 miles later, Baker was stopped again for speeding. This time, a K-9 unit was present, and the dog alerted to drugs in the car, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine, fentanyl pills, and cocaine.Baker moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the second stop was unreasonably prolonged to conduct the dog sniff, violating the Fourth Amendment as per Rodriguez v. United States. The District Court for the District of Wyoming initially granted the motion, finding no reasonable suspicion for the second stop. However, upon the government's motion to reconsider, the court reversed its decision, ruling the stop was a valid pretextual stop under Whren v. United States and that the dog sniff did not unreasonably prolong the stop.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the actions taken by Deputy Lloyd, including asking Baker to exit the vehicle and rolling up the windows, were reasonable safety measures related to the traffic stop. The court found that these actions did not divert from the traffic mission and that the dog sniff occurred contemporaneously with the traffic stop, thus not prolonging it. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Baker's motion to suppress the evidence. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Eligius Montano pleaded guilty to robbing a Metro PCS store in Belen, New Mexico, in 2022. During the robbery, Montano and his father created the impression they were armed by positioning their hands inside their sweatshirts. They stole approximately $8000 in merchandise and fled in a getaway car driven by Daniel Montano’s girlfriend, Jennah Payne. During the police pursuit, Payne drove recklessly, allegedly at Montano’s urging, before the vehicle was stopped by spike strips. Montano and his father were apprehended after attempting to carjack other vehicles.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sentenced Montano, applying two sentencing enhancements: one for creating the impression of possessing a firearm and another for reckless endangerment during the getaway. The court also assigned three criminal history points to each of five consolidated state cases from a prior judgment, resulting in a criminal history category of VI. Montano appealed, challenging the application of the sentencing enhancements and the calculation of his criminal history points.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancements, finding sufficient evidence that Montano created the impression of a firearm and induced reckless driving during the getaway. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in assigning three criminal history points to each of the five consolidated state cases without sufficient evidence to support this allocation. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Montano’s appropriate criminal history category should be V, not VI.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancements but reversed the criminal history calculation. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment and resentence Montano based on a criminal history category of V. View "United States v. Montano" on Justia Law

Craig Wood was indicted on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country. The government needed to prove Wood's Indian status to secure a conviction. To do so, they introduced a "Certificate of Indian Blood" from the Seneca-Cayuga Nation, authenticated by a "Certificate of Authenticity." Wood objected, arguing he was not given reasonable pre-trial notice of the Authenticity Certificate, as required by Rule 902(11), and thus had no fair opportunity to challenge it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma overruled Wood's objection, admitting the Indian Blood Certificate into evidence. The court did not address the notice requirement under Rule 902(11) and based its decision solely on the fact that the same individual signed both certificates. Wood was subsequently convicted on both charges by a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court's decision to admit the Indian Blood Certificate without proper notice was manifestly unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit emphasized that Rule 902(11) requires reasonable pre-trial written notice to allow the opposing party a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence. The court concluded that the district court's failure to consider the notice requirement was an abuse of discretion.The Tenth Circuit also determined that the error was not harmless. The improperly admitted Indian Blood Certificate was the only direct evidence of Wood's Indian status, which was crucial for the jurisdictional requirement. The court noted that the government's argument that M.M.'s testimony about Wood's Indian status was sufficient was unconvincing and did not meet the required standard for harmless error.As a result, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, vacated Wood's convictions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wood" on Justia Law

Davidson Oil Company entered into a fixed-price requirements contract with the City of Albuquerque to supply all of the city's fuel needs for a year. Shortly after the contract was signed, fuel market prices dropped significantly. The city requested a price reduction, which Davidson Oil refused, citing potential losses due to hedge contracts it had entered into to protect against market fluctuations. The city then terminated the contract using a termination for convenience clause, prompting Davidson Oil to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment in favor of Davidson Oil, awarding damages for the value of the hedge contracts. The court found that while the city did not breach the explicit terms of the contract, it violated an implied covenant by terminating the contract in bad faith to secure a better bargain elsewhere.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the City of Albuquerque breached the contract by exercising the termination for convenience clause solely to obtain a better deal from another supplier. The court emphasized that such an action violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the contract. The court also upheld the district court's award of damages, including the hedge contract losses, as incidental damages under the Uniform Commercial Code, finding them to be commercially reasonable and directly resulting from the breach. View "Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

In May 2018, Brian Estrada, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), attempted to escape from a courthouse while shackled. He was shot three times by Jacob Smart, a CDOC officer. Estrada filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smart, concluding that Estrada had failed to exhaust all available CDOC administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Estrada did not follow CDOC’s three-step grievance process regarding the shooting incident. Estrada argued that the courthouse was not a CDOC prison, and thus, the PLRA did not apply to his case. The district court disagreed, ruling that the PLRA and CDOC’s grievance procedures applied to the shooting of a CDOC inmate by a CDOC officer, regardless of the location.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies broadly to all inmate suits about prison life, including incidents occurring outside the prison walls, such as the courthouse shooting. The court also determined that CDOC’s grievance procedures were applicable to the incident, as they cover actions by employees and incidents affecting inmates, even outside the facility. The court concluded that Estrada’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies barred his § 1983 claim. View "Estrada v. Smart" on Justia Law