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

This appeal grew out of Brent Sloan’s participation in two transactions: (1) a merger between Advanced Recovery Systems, LLC and Kinum, Inc.; and (2) the sale of software from Kinum to Sajax Software, LLC. American Agencies, LLC alleged harm from these transactions and sued Sloan for damages and restitution. After the close of evidence, Sloan filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Following the denial of this motion, a jury found Sloan liable on American Agencies’ claims of tortious interference with business relations, conspiracy to interfere with business relations, tortious interference with contract, copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Sloan unsuccessfully renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law. After the district court denied this motion, Sloan appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part finding Sloan did not preserve his arguments as to tortious interference with business relations, conspiracy to interfere with business relations, and tortious interference with contract. The Tenth Circuit agreed the district court erred in instructing the jury on improper means, and the Court concurred with Sloan that on the claim of unjust enrichment, the jury could not have reasonably inferred the value of a benefit to him. View "Sloan v. American Agencies, LLC" on Justia Law

A Wyoming jury convicted Defendant Christopher Lee Martinez on one count of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. On appeal Defendant argued the district court: (1) should have authorized funds for a forensic psychologist; (2) improperly excluded evidence of his history of mental illness; and (3) should have allowed him to present evidence of his character for truthfulness. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Martinez’s conviction. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant Alexander Miles appealed the denial of his second petition for a writ of coram nobis. He pleaded guilty in 2009 to submitting a false affidavit in connection with an application for a visa for a 14-year-old girl from Cambodia to whom he was engaged. He already unsuccessfully challenged that judgment in a direct appeal, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, and a previous petition for a writ of coram nobis. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of his second petition because each of its claims for relief either had been raised by Defendant in earlier proceedings and rejected by the Tenth Circuit, or could have been raised in those proceedings and was inexcusably neglected. View "United States v. Miles" on Justia Law

Defendant Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. (Chaparral) operated approximately 2,500 oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. Plaintiffs Naylor Farms, Inc. and Harrel’s, L.L.C. (collectively, Naylor Farms) had royalty interests in some of those wells. According to Naylor Farms, Chaparral systematically underpaid Naylor Farms and other similarly situated royalty owners by improperly deducting from their royalty payments certain gas-treatment costs that Naylor Farms contended Chaparral was required to shoulder under Oklahoma law. Naylor Farms brought a putative class-action lawsuit against Chaparral and moved to certify the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted Naylor Farms’ motion to certify, and Chaparral appealed the district court’s certification order. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Chaparral failed to demonstrate the district court’s decision to certify the class fell outside “the bounds of rationally available choices given the facts and law involved in the matter at hand.” View "Naylor Farms v. Chaparral Energy" on Justia Law

Julie Reed sued her former employer, KeyPoint Government Solutions, LLC (“KeyPoint”), for violating the federal False Claims Act. Her qui tam claims alleged KeyPoint violated the Act by knowingly and fraudulently billing the government for work that was inadequately or improperly completed. Reed also claimed that KeyPoint fired her in retaliation for her efforts to stop KeyPoint’s fraud. The issues this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether: (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in KeyPoint's favor on Reed's qui tam claims; and (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing Reed's retaliation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). According to Reed, KeyPoint’s management not only knew of systemic violations but also encouraged them by pressuring investigators to rush investigations to maximize revenue. Alarmed by the abuses, Reed voiced her concerns within the company. Reed’s efforts to curb the violations failed. Eventually, KeyPoint fired Reed. About a month later, Reed and her counsel contacted the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and discussed the abuses she claimed to have witnessed while at KeyPoint. At the government’s urging, Reed sued KeyPoint in January 2014. Her operative complaint raised three qui tam claims and a retaliation claim. The qui tam claims alleged that KeyPoint violated the False Claims Act by: (1) falsely certifying that it performed complete and accurate investigations, (2) falsely certifying that it did proper case reviews and quality-control checks, and (3) falsifying corrective action reports. Reed’s retaliation claim alleged that KeyPoint fired her for trying to stop it from violating the False Claims Act. The Tenth Circuit determined Reed pled sufficient facts to survive a motion for summary judgment with respect to the False Claims Act, but not enough to survive dismissal of her retaliation claim. The Tenth Circuit concluded Reed failed to show KeyPoint knew of her protected activities such that the company was on notice of her efforts to stop its alleged violations. View "United States ex rel. Reed v. Keypoint Government Solutions" on Justia Law

Clarence Goode, Jr. was convicted in Oklahoma of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The federal district court denied his petition for relief filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Goode raised two claims: (1) a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that the State of Oklahoma suppressed material information about the corrupt conduct of Jeff Henderson, one of its investigating officers; and (2) an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim with numerous subclaims. Because none of Goode’s claims merited relief under section 2254, The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the application. View "Goode v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Shawn Gorrell was an insurance salesman based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His father was an accountant in Tulsa whose clients included several dentists and Gorrell sold insurance to some of them. In 2009, Gorrell began to pitch investments to these dentists that were outside of his typical insurance products. Some dentists initially gave Gorrell modest sums to invest, but later the amounts ballooned to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Gorrell would ultimately be convicted by jury on three counts of wire fraud and three counts of tax evasion. He appealed only the tax evasion charges, seeking a new trial on those counts. He argued the trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury to consider “specified theories of an affirmative act (an element of tax evasion), which were legally invalid theories of guilt as a matter of law, the jury was instructed to be unanimous in finding an affirmative act, and the jury returned a general verdict of guilt.” The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err, “much less plainly err,” in its instructions to the jury. Given the evidence elicited at trial, in light of those instructions, Gorrell’s convictions for tax evasion were supported. View "United States v. Gorrell" on Justia Law

John and Deanne Roth appealed a Tax Court decision that imposed a 40% penalty for the Roths’ “gross misstatement” of the value of a conservation easement they donated to a land trust in Colorado. On appeal, the Roths largely argued that, before imposing the penalty, the IRS failed to obtain written, supervisory approval for its “initial determination” of a penalty assessment as required by I.R.C. 6751(b). The Roths also sought a deduction in 2007 for repayments they made on the proceeds from their sale of tax credits generated by their donation of a separate conservation easement in 2006. The Tenth Circuit disagreed as to both counts and therefore affirmed the Tax Court. View "Roth v. CIR" on Justia Law

Antonio Smith pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to drug trafficking, possessing a firearm as a felon, and a variety of related charges. Smith’s habeas claims centered around a plea offer that one of Smith’s attorneys allegedly didn’t communicate to him: Smith said he rejected a 25-year plea offer from the state that his first attorney presented to him; Smith’s first attorney subsequently withdrew; the sentencing court appointed a new attorney; Smith says his second attorney told him shortly after she was appointed that the state had withdrawn an offer for a 20-year sentence. On the day his case was set to go to trial, Smith pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. During the plea hearing, the state told the court Smith rejected its offer for a 20-year sentence. When the sentencing court asked Smith’s second attorney if the state’s recollection of its prior offer coincided with her own, Smith’s second attorney confirmed it. When the court specifically asked Smith’s second attorney if she discussed the 20-year offer with Smith, she equivocated and responded, “We discussed recommendations; we discussed counter-offers; I conveyed counteroffers. Those were rejected.” It was undetermined whether the second attorney mentioned the deal presented to the first attorney. Nor did she mention that she didn’t represent Smith when plea bargaining began, despite her representation to the court that she discussed prior offers with Smith. Adding to this confusion, Smith’s first attorney told the Oklahoma Bar Association that, contrary to what the state told the sentencing court, the lowest sentence the state ever offered Smith was 25 years. The sentencing court ultimately sentenced Smith to 30 years in prison. Smith neither sought to withdraw his plea nor appealed within the 10 days in which Oklahoma allowed him to do so. Smith petitioned the district court under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking habeas relief. After review of the record, the Tenth Circuit concluded Smith had shown both cause and prejudice, and there were unresolved factual issues to be addressed before habeas relief could be granted. The Tenth Circuit reversed the sentence Smith received and remanded for the district court to hold further proceedings. View "Smith v. Allbaugh" on Justia Law

Leonard Aragon was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. He appealed, arguing the district court erred in finding that two packages found in his car contained 28.5 grams of methamphetamine and 11 grams of heroin, respectively. He also contended “the judge abused his discretion by sua sponte presenting his own evidence in support of a higher sentence.” The Tenth Circuit found that although the suspected heroin appeared to be wrapped in light packaging, the same could not be said for the suspected methamphetamine. “Even adding all 11.5 grams of heroin to the amounts from the controlled buys would require more than 7 grams of methamphetamine to make Mr. Aragon’s offense level 24 as the district court found.” The Tenth Circuit found nothing in the record to suggest the trial judge would be unable or unwilling to set aside the additional drugs in accordance with its conclusion that their net weights were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore the Court declined to reassign the case on remand. The sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for further development. View "United States v. Aragon" on Justia Law