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

Raymundo Guevara-Lopez was stopped by a New Mexico State Police officer for a minor traffic violation in September 2021. During the stop, inconsistencies in the travel plans provided by Guevara-Lopez and his passenger raised the officer's suspicions. A search of the vehicle revealed $60,980 in cash hidden behind screwed-in panels. Guevara-Lopez admitted to transporting the money to Mexico for drug cartels and estimated he had made 25 to 30 trips, typically transporting between $110,000 to $118,000 each trip.A federal grand jury indicted Guevara-Lopez in June 2023 for attempted bulk-cash smuggling and aiding and abetting. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The Presentence Report (PSR) calculated a guidelines range of 24 to 30 months based on a total offense level of 17 and a criminal-history category of I. The district court, however, varied upward and sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 60 months, citing the large amount of money smuggled and his pending state charges in Texas.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found the district court's sentence substantively unreasonable, noting that the district court failed to adequately address the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities and relied on incorrect information about Guevara-Lopez's Texas charges. The Tenth Circuit vacated the 60-month sentence and remanded for resentencing, emphasizing the need for a more detailed explanation to justify the significant upward variance. View "United States v. Guevara-Lopez" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ralph Marcus Hardy, an inmate at Adams County Detention Facility (ACDF) in Colorado, fell from his wheelchair and suffered serious injuries. Despite his repeated requests for medical attention, jail officials allegedly ignored his pleas. Hardy claims that Detention Specialist Daniel DeHerrera ignored emergency distress signals from his cell, and Deputy Dennis Rabie, who later found Hardy in pain, also failed to provide medical assistance.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case. Deputy Rabie and Detention Specialist DeHerrera moved to dismiss Hardy’s claims, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion, finding that Hardy plausibly alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Hardy sufficiently alleged that both Deputy Rabie and Detention Specialist DeHerrera acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The court found that Hardy’s constitutional rights were violated and that these rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. The court concluded that both defendants were aware of Hardy’s serious medical needs and failed to take reasonable measures to address them, thus denying them qualified immunity. View "Hardy v. Rabie" on Justia Law

On February 4, 2022, the Tulsa Police Department responded to calls about a violent domestic dispute involving Dakota Wayne Campus and his pregnant fiancée, M.D. Campus chased M.D. with a firearm, dragged her back to her apartment, and strangled her. He fled the scene but was apprehended seven days later. Campus was charged with multiple crimes, including assault and firearm offenses.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma found Campus guilty on all counts. The jury's verdict included charges of assault by strangulation, assault with a dangerous weapon, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court sentenced Campus to 240 months in prison, including a two-level adjustment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for physically restraining the victim.Campus appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the district court improperly applied the two-level adjustment for physical restraint under § 3A1.3 of the Guidelines. He contended that this adjustment constituted impermissible double counting because his offense already involved a degree of restraint.The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and factual findings for clear error. The court held that the two-level adjustment for physical restraint was appropriate because Campus's actions of holding M.D. at gunpoint and dragging her back into the apartment were separate from the strangulation offense. The court concluded that the adjustment did not constitute double counting and affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Campus" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on charges of possession of child pornography and sexual abuse of a minor. Before the trial, the government filed a notice to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior similar conduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The district court allowed this evidence, and after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of several counts related to coercion and enticement and child sex offenses. He was sentenced to 340 months in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the prior conduct evidence, claiming it was not for a proper purpose and was unfairly prejudicial.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma admitted the evidence, finding it relevant to show the defendant's identity, intent, motive, and plan. The court also provided a limiting instruction to the jury to mitigate any potential prejudice. The jury found the defendant guilty of the charges involving one minor but acquitted him of charges involving another.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 evidence of the defendant's prior conduct was admissible under Rule 404(b) for proper purposes, including showing identity, intent, plan, and motive. The court found that the evidence was relevant and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The limiting instruction given to the jury was deemed sufficient to address any potential prejudice. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and upheld the defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Summers" on Justia Law

ADA Carbon Solutions (Red River), LLC ("ADA") filed a lawsuit against Atlas Carbon, LLC ("Atlas") in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Wyoming law. ADA claimed that Atlas breached their contract for the sale of activated carbon by improperly invoking the "Force Majeure" clause and failing to supply the agreed-upon quantity of carbon. ADA filed an amended complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).The district court accepted jurisdiction and, after a bench trial, awarded ADA $76,000 in damages. ADA appealed the district court's judgment, dissatisfied with the method for calculating damages. During the appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals identified potential jurisdictional defects, specifically regarding the complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. The court ordered supplemental briefing to clarify the citizenship of Atlas's members, including trusts and limited partnerships involved.The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it lacked sufficient information to determine whether complete diversity of citizenship existed at the time of filing. The court noted that Atlas's identification of its members, including trusts and limited partnerships, was incomplete and did not provide adequate information about their citizenship. Consequently, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court to make the necessary factual findings to determine whether it had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The district court was instructed to analyze the citizenship of all members of ADA and Atlas, tracing through all layers of ownership to ensure complete diversity. View "ADA Carbon Solutions (Red River) v. Atlas Carbon" on Justia Law

In January 2023, Chase Lane Rocha, living in a camper in Boswell, Oklahoma, with his pregnant girlfriend, was involved in a series of events leading to the death of his mother, Riki Amix. After consuming alcohol, Rocha returned home and got into a physical altercation with his stepfather, Dakota Amix. Rocha, intoxicated and distraught, armed himself with a pistol and, during a confrontation with family members, accidentally discharged the weapon, fatally wounding his mother. Rocha fled the scene, discarded the weapon, and later surrendered to law enforcement, admitting to the shooting but claiming it was accidental.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma conducted a jury trial where Rocha was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country. The court denied Rocha’s request for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, reasoning that Rocha did not admit to the mens rea of involuntary manslaughter. The court sentenced Rocha to 60 months in prison, an upward variance from the Guidelines range of 27 to 33 months, citing the need for just punishment and deterrence, and the reckless nature of Rocha’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment was not clearly erroneous given Rocha’s conduct before and during the trial. The appellate court also found that the district court did not err in considering societal expectations as part of its analysis of permissible sentencing factors. Finally, the appellate court concluded that the district court’s explanation for the upward variance was adequate and that the sentence was substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. View "United States v. Rocha" on Justia Law

A 56-year-old man from Kansas City, Missouri, responded to an online advertisement posted by a law enforcement officer posing as a 17-year-old girl seeking money. The man offered $500 for a weekend of sexual activity, but testified that he did not believe the ad was genuine and that his response was intended as a joke, based on a coworker’s suggestion. The two exchanged messages, with the officer repeatedly referencing her age and the man continuing the conversation, often using internet slang that could indicate joking. Eventually, the officer persuaded the man to drive to Kansas to meet, but when he arrived, he did not have the promised money or whiskey.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas presided over the trial. The defendant asserted an entrapment defense, arguing he lacked predisposition to commit the offense and was induced by the government. The district court, however, refused to instruct the jury on entrapment, finding the evidence insufficient to support such a defense. The jury convicted the defendant of crossing state lines with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Applying de novo review and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the court held that a reasonable jury could have found both a lack of predisposition and government inducement, entitling the defendant to an entrapment instruction. The court found the district court’s failure to give the instruction was not harmless error. However, the appellate court also determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, so retrial is permitted. The Tenth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for new proceedings. View "United States v. Spradley" on Justia Law

The City of Fort Collins contracted with Open International, LLC, for software services, which led to mutual breach-of-contract claims. The City also alleged that Open's precontractual statements were negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations. A jury found that Open fraudulently induced the City to enter the contract. The City elected to rescind the contract, and the district court held a bench trial on restitution, ordering a judgment of nearly $20 million against Open.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Open's motions for judgment as a matter of law, which argued that the City’s tort claims were barred by the economic-loss rule and the contract’s merger clause. The court also denied Open's motion to require the City to elect a remedy before trial. The jury found in favor of the City on the fraudulent inducement claim, and the City chose rescission, leading to the dismissal of the jury and a bench trial on restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings and the jury’s verdict. The court held that the City’s tort claims were not barred by the economic-loss rule or the contract’s merger clause. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of fraud, particularly regarding Open’s grading of the functionality matrix and the use of a different software portal. The court also upheld the finding that the City did not waive its right to rescind the contract, as there was conflicting evidence about when the City discovered the fraud. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Open’s Rule 50(b) motion, which argued that Open Investments could not be liable for rescission. View "City of Fort Collins v. Open International" on Justia Law

Jasvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without authorization in August 2018. He claimed he faced political violence in India due to his membership in the Mann Party, a rival political group. Singh was apprehended in New Mexico and processed for expedited removal. He conceded removability but requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. While detained, Singh went on a 74-day hunger strike to protest his detention conditions, resuming eating three weeks before his asylum hearing. Singh requested a continuance, claiming he lacked the competency to participate due to his hunger strike, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the request, finding Singh appeared healthy and competent. Singh then refused to sign his asylum application, resulting in an order of removal.Singh appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ's decision. The BIA found that the IJ properly assessed Singh's competency and that there was no good cause for a continuance, given the time Singh had to prepare and his representation by counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Singh did not exhibit sufficient indicia of mental incompetency. The court noted that Singh was responsive to questions, appeared healthy, and had resumed eating three weeks before the hearing. The court also found that the IJ correctly assessed Singh's competency and that the BIA did not err in affirming the denial of the continuance. The court concluded that Singh had ample time to prepare for his hearing and lacked good cause for a continuance. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision and denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Christopher Fucci and over 50 other individuals and family entities (Plaintiffs) purchased interests in real estate development projects in Florida and Ohio. Each sale was documented in a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) containing an arbitration clause. However, none of the projects were completed, and Plaintiffs sued First American Title Insurance Company (First American) and its employee Kirsten Parkin (FA Defendants), who acted as the escrow agent in the closing of each sale. Although the FA Defendants were not signatories to the PSAs, they moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clauses in the agreements.The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied the motion to compel arbitration. The FA Defendants argued on appeal that they could enforce the arbitration clauses because they were parties to the PSAs, third-party beneficiaries, agents of a party to the PSAs, and that Plaintiffs were equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration. The district court had previously denied the motion without prejudice, waiting for a related case ruling. After the related case was decided, the FA Defendants filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by a magistrate judge. The district court overruled the FA Defendants' objections and adopted the magistrate judge's order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the FA Defendants were not parties to the PSAs, were not third-party beneficiaries, and could not compel arbitration as agents because Rockwell, the principal, had waived the arbitration provision. Additionally, the court ruled that equitable estoppel could not be invoked to expand the scope of the arbitration clause to include disputes between Plaintiffs and the FA Defendants. View "Fucci v. First American Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law