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

The government alleged that defendant Carlos Fernandez-Baron participated in a drug ring that repeatedly transported large quantities of cocaine from El Paso to Denver. The government relied in part on a text message asking Fernandez-Barron about the timetable for delivery of a “BMW.” An expert witness for the government testified that “BMW” was code for a load delivery of cocaine (rather than an actual BMW). Fernandez-Barron denied that the message referred to cocaine, testifying that he had been in the process of selling his BMW and arranging to deliver the car. References to an Impala stemmed from testimony by another participant in the drug ring, Martha Mota. Mota stated that one of the men was the same person depicted in a photograph of Fernandez-Barron, but she couldn’t recognize this man in the courtroom during the trial. Fernandez-Barron was ultimately convicted on charges of conspiracy, distribution, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. At sentencing, the district court found Fernandez-Barron perjured himself when testifying that he had sold a BMW in May 2014 and did not own an Impala. Based on the perjury, the court imposed a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. Fernandez-Barron appealed, challenging the enhancement for obstruction of justice. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. View "United States v. Fernandez-Barron" on Justia Law

Kenneth Brewington told potential investors that he owned or controlled billions in assets that didn’t exist. At trial, Brewington acknowledged that much of what he had said was untrue. But he argued to the jury that he had been duped. "The jury was apparently unimpressed," and found him guilty on eleven counts of: (1) conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud; (2) mail fraud; (3) wire fraud; (4) conspiracy to commit money laundering; (5) money laundering; and (6) monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. Brewington was sentenced to 70 months in prison. Brewington appealed the convictions based on the district court’s: (1) exclusion of emails that he had sent and received and (2) restriction of testimony by another person duped by the same man who had allegedly duped Brewington. The Tenth Circuit rejected these challenges, finding Brewington never offered some of the emails into evidence, so the court never had an opportunity to consider their admissibility. The district court did exclude three other emails. But if the court did err in these rulings, the errors would have been harmless because the district court ultimately allowed Brewington to testify about the emails, and the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. View "United States v. Brewington" on Justia Law

Petitioner Aaron Sandusky, a federal prisoner then-serving a 120-month sentence in connection with two marijuana-trafficking convictions, filed a petition for habeas relief, asserting that a congressional appropriations rider prevented the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from expending any funds to incarcerate him during the applicable time period of the appropriations rider. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the proper vehicle for Sandusky’s claim was a motion filed in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Sandusky appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was mistaken, and that a motion filed pursuant to section 2241 was the proper vehicle for the relief that Sandusky sought. Consequently, it reversed the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sandusky v. Goetz" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the Tulsa, Oklahoma Police Department’s investigation into the murder of an infant. The police suspected the infant’s mother, plaintiff-appellant Michelle Murphy. She ultimately confessed, but later recanted and sued the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that Murphy had not presented evidence that would trigger municipal liability. Finding no reversible error after review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Murphy v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

Feuu Fagatele appealed his 46-month prison sentence, arguing the district court erred in classifying Utah third-degree aggravated assault as a crime of violence under section 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). Fagatele pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based in part on Fagatele’s 2013 Utah conviction for third-degree aggravated assault, an offense the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) classified as a crime of violence, the PSR calculated a base offense level of 20. Fagatele objected, arguing in relevant part that third-degree aggravated assault did not constitute a crime of violence under the federal guideline 4B1.2(a)’s elements clause. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded third-degree aggravated assault “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Accordingly, it affirmed Fagatele’s sentence. View "United States v. Fagatele" on Justia Law

Prison Legal News (“PLN”) published a monthly magazine to help inmates navigate the criminal justice system. Between January 2010 and April 2014, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) rejected the distribution of 11 publications PLN sent to inmate subscribers at the BOP’s United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado (“ADX”). PLN sued the BOP, claiming the rejections violated PLN’s First Amendment rights, its Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). ADX responded by distributing the 11 publications, revising its institutional policies, and issuing a declaration from its current Warden. Based on these actions, the BOP moved for summary judgment, arguing that PLN’s claims were moot or not ripe. PLN filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on its First and Fifth Amendment claims. The district court granted the BOP’s motion and dismissed the case as moot. The Tenth Circuit determined factual developments during the litigation indeed mooted PLN’s claims. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the BOP and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Prison Legal News v. Federal Bureau of Prisons" on Justia Law

Anjela Greer, an employee for the City of Wichita who worked at the Wichita Art Museum, contended her employer denied her a promotion because of her military service in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. She applied for a promotion but didn’t get an interview. Greer simultaneously served in the Navy Reserves and worked as a security guard at the Wichita Art Museum. After about five years as a security guard Greer learned of a vacancy for the museum’s “Operations Supervisor.” She and one other person applied. A city employee screened the applications and decided not to advance Greer to the next stage, where she would have been interviewed. The Museum attributed the denial of an interview to Greer’s lack of qualifications: the new job required at least one year of prior supervisory work in particular fields. The application called for Greer to state how many people she supervised. She answered “2,” but identified her job title only as “Security” and didn’t list any supervisory duties. Based on the job title and the absence of any listed supervisory duties, the Museum maintained Greer’s application had shown a lack of supervisory experience. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on two grounds: (1) any reasonable factfinder would determine that the defendants had declined to advance Greer to the interview stage because her application showed a lack of supervisory experience; and (2) the defendants had proven that they wouldn’t have advanced Greer to an interview regardless of her military status. The Tenth Circuit rejected both grounds. The first was invalid because a factfinder could reasonably infer that Greer’s military status was a motivating factor in defendants’ denial of an interview. The second ground was also invalid because a factfinder could have reasonably found Greer would have obtained an interview if she had not been serving in the military. The Court thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. View "Greer v. City of Wichita, Kansas" on Justia Law

In 2014, Brian Shotts was injured in a car accident caused by Dana Pollard. Shotts was insured under a policy issued by GEICO General Insurance Company (“GEICO”), which included underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage. Pollard had automobile insurance through Farmers Insurance (“Farmers”). Shotts filed a claim with Farmers, which offered Pollard’s policy limits as settlement. Before accepting the offer, Shotts notified GEICO of the accident. GEICO opened a claim, assigned an adjuster, and began an investigation. GEICO also waived its subrogation rights, allowing Shotts to accept the offer from Farmers. GEICO’s investigation determined that Shotts’s injuries exceeded Pollard’s policy limits by $3,210.87. GEICO offered Shotts a settlement of that amount, but Shotts declined the offer as “unreasonably low.” Shotts demanded GEICO promptly “pay the first dollar of his claim, up to the value of [the] claim or the total available UM limits” of $25,000. He also asked GEICO to reevaluate the offer. In response, GEICO requested additional information about Shotts’s injuries. It then proposed a peer review to determine whether his injuries exceeded the $3,210.87 offer. Shotts sued for bad faith breach of contract, alleging that GEICO acted in bad faith by: (1) conducting “a biased and unfair investigation and evaluation of [his] claim”; and (2) failing to pay the full value of his claim. He also requested punitive damages. The district court granted summary judgment for GEICO on both bad faith claims and denied punitive damages. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Shotts v. GEICO" on Justia Law

Nicholas Davis was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of first-degree murder, for which he was sentenced to death. He sought federal habeas relief. In relevant part, he asserted that both trial counsel and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective in failing to adequately investigate his mental health and discover that he suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Specifically, in Davis' trial PTSD claim, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate, develop, and present evidence, at both the guilt and sentencing stages, that he suffered from PTSD. In his appellate PTSD claim, he alleged that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate, develop, and raise this aspect of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness on appeal. He further argued that appellate counsel was likewise ineffective in failing to investigate and present “[a] complete mental[-]health claim . . . on appeal.” The district court ruled that these claims (regarding depression) were unexhausted and subject to an anticipatory procedural bar. The Tenth Circuit, however, affirmed denial of habeas relief. The Court found Davis' Depression Claims were subject to an anticipatory procedural bar. And because the Appellate PTSD Claim lacked merit, it did not excuse the procedural default of the Trial PTSD Claim or constitute an independent basis for granting the writ. Furthermore, the Court denied Davis’s request for an expanded COA to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on three additional claims he presented in his section 2254 petition because reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s resolution of those claims. View "Davis v. Sharp" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant–Appellant Kevin Leffler guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, possessing with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possessing an unregistered firearm. Defendant appealed only his conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, arguing the Government presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of this offense. Because Defendant waived his only asserted ground for appeal, the Tenth Circuit declined to address the merits of his claim. View "United States v. Leffler" on Justia Law