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

In 2010, the Internal Revenue Service issued a refund to the Wichita Center of Graduate Medical Education (a federally qualified charitable organization) on overpaid taxes along with incorrectly calculated interest on the refund. The IRS then sought repayment of part of the interest. Under the Internal Revenue Code, corporate taxpayers received a lower refund interest rate than other taxpayers such as individuals or partnerships. The Center claimed it was not a corporation for purposes of this section and was be entitled to the higher interest rate applicable to non-corporations. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the Center was a corporation and subject to the lower interest rate: the statutory text compelled the conclusion that the Center, even though it did not issue stock or generate profit, had to be treated as an ordinary corporation for purposes of the refund statute. View "Wichita Ctr for Grad Med. Ed. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Bill Barrett Corporation and YMC Royalty Company were oil and gas companies who held mineral rights in northeastern Colorado. In 2013, they had the opportunity to jointly develop two oil wells. To facilitate the drilling operations, YMC executed documents authorizing joint expenditures, accepting responsibility for costs, and electing to participate and share in the revenues. But after depositing nearly $150,000 in revenues, YMC asserted it had never entered into an enforceable joint operating agreement with Barrett and declined to pay its share of the costs. Barrett sued for breach of contract. A jury ultimately found in favor of Barrett. The district court denied YMC’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. After its review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded the parties formed an enforceable contract under Colorado law and a reasonable jury could conclude the parties should be held to their bargain. The Court also found no reversible error in the district court's administration of trial, and affirmed that court's judgment. View "Bill Barrett Corporation v. YMC Royalty Company" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Stacy Knapp entered a conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which she was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. The conditional plea allowed her to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, and in the event it was successful, to withdraw her guilty plea. The validity of Knapp’s arrest was not at issue; this appeal turned on: (1) whether the search of her purse was one of her person for the purposes of Robinson; and (2) if the search was not of her person, whether the search was nevertheless justified because it was within “the area from within which [she] might [have] gain[ed] possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Knapp presented two arguments why the search of her purse was not one “of her person” at the time of her arrest: (1) the government was wrong on the facts because she was not carrying her purse when she was told she was under arrest, rather, it was sitting somewhere within the truck, and she had to “collect” it from the truck to bring it into the store; and (2) the district court did not make a specific factual finding comparing the exact time of the arrest with when Knapp grabbed her purse - It simply noted, “[Knapp] brought her purse with her into the grocery store.” The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the search of Knapp’s purse was not one of her person for the purposes of United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973), and because the search of her purse was not actually supported by the Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) justifications, the exception for a search incident to arrest did not apply here. View "United States v. Knapp" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the efforts the IRS made to investigate the tax liability of High Desert Relief, Inc. (“HDR”), a medical marijuana dispensary in New Mexico. The IRS began an investigation into whether HDR had improperly paid its taxes, and specifically whether it had improperly taken deductions for business expenses that arose from a “trade or business” that “consists of trafficking in controlled substances.” Because HDR refused to furnish the IRS with requested audit information, the IRS issued four summonses to third parties in an attempt to obtain the relevant materials by other means. HDR filed separate petitions to quash these third-party summonses in federal district court in the District of New Mexico, and the government filed corresponding counterclaims seeking enforcement of the summonses. HDR argued that the summonses were issued for an improper purpose—specifically, that the IRS, in seeking to determine the applicability of 26 U.S.C. 280E, was mounting a de facto criminal investigation pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act. HDR also asserted that enforcement of section 280E was improper because an "official [federal] policy of non-enforcement” of the CSA against medical marijuana dispensaries had rendered that statute’s proscription on marijuana trafficking a “dead letter” incapable of engendering adverse tax consequences for HDR. The petitions were resolved in proceedings before two different district court judges; both judges ruled in favor of the United States on the petitions to quash, and separately granted the United States’ motions to enforce the summonses. HDR challenged these rulings on appeal. The Tenth Circuit determined HDR was unable to overcome the government’s demonstration of good faith under United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964), and its alternative “dead letter” argument was without merit. View "High Desert Relief v. United States" on Justia Law

Tony Kourianos worked as a coal miner for more than 27 years before filing a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (“BLBA”). His claim was reviewed through a three-tiered administrative process. Ultimately, the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) found that he was entitled to benefits. The BRB also found that Kourianos’s last employer, Hidden Splendor Resources, Inc., was the “responsible operator” liable for paying those benefits. Hidden Splendor’s insurer, Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company, petitioned the Tent Circuit Court of Appeal for review of the BRB’s decision: (1) challenging the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision prohibiting Hidden Splendor from withdrawing its responsible operator stipulation; and (2) contending the BRB incorrectly found that Kourianos was totally disabled and entitled to benefits. Finding no abuse of discretion in the BRB decision, the Tenth Circuit denied Rockwood's petition. View "Rockwood Casualty Insurance v. Director, OWCP" on Justia Law

Taxpayers Neil Feinberg, Andrea Feinberg, and Kellie McDonald were shareholders in Total Health Concepts, LLC (THC), a Colorado company allegedly engaged in selling medical marijuana. After the Taxpayers claimed THC’s income and losses on their tax returns, the IRS conducted an audit and disallowed certain deductions under 26 U.S.C. 280E, which prohibited deductions for businesses engaged in unlawful trafficking of controlled substances. The IRS then recalculated the Taxpayers’ tax liability and issued a notice of deficiency for the unpaid balance. The Taxpayers challenged that determination in tax court, which affirmed on the basis that the Taxpayers had failed to substantiate the business expenses. Both parties agreed the tax court erred by injecting a substantiation issue into this case not raised in the notice of deficiency, and then placed the burden for refuting that claim on the Taxpayers. But the Commissioner argued the Tenth Circuit should affirm on the alternative ground that the Taxpayers did not meet their burden of proving the IRS’s determination that THC was unlawfully trafficking in a controlled substance was erroneous. The Taxpayers disagreed and contended placing the burden on them would violate their Fifth Amendment privilege. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded allocation of the burden of proof did not constitute “compulsion” under the Fifth Amendment, and because the Taxpayers made no attempt to meet their evidentiary burden, the Court affirmed the tax court on the alternative ground that section 280E prohibited the deductions. View "Feinberg v. CIR" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee First American Title Insurance Co. appealed a district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Banner Bank (“the Bank”). The district court held that First American had a duty to defend and indemnify its insured, the Bank, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and was responsible for attorneys’ fees in this case. This resulted in an award of damages ($675,000) plus attorneys’ fees in an underlying lawsuit ($159,288), and consequential damages of attorneys’ fees in this case ($130,411.50). The Bank cross-appealed in the event that the award of consequential damages was procedurally incorrect. The Tenth Circuit concluded First American did not breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing, so any award of damages arising from that implied term was improper. Because it was error to award attorneys’ fees, arguments whether the Bank should have been awarded fees under its renewed motion for attorneys’ fees or under Rule 54(d) were moot, and the Bank’s cross-appeal under Rule 60 should have been dismissed. Because the Court concluded there was no duty to defend or indemnify, nor a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, the damages awards could not stand. On remand, the district court was ordered to vacate its orders and judgments to the contrary and enter judgment in favor of First American. View "Banner Bank v. First American Title Insurance" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Gregory Orozco was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (count 1), and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine (count 2). Orozco moved for a new trial, alleging the government violated his Sixth Amendment right by interfering with his right to call a witness on his behalf. The district court granted the motion, vacated the two convictions, and dismissed the underlying counts of the superseding indictment. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the remedy imposed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court was ordered to vacate its dismissal of the underlying counts of the superseding indictment to allow for retrial. View "United States v. Orozco" on Justia Law

This case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico’s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM”), and five New Mexico state legislators (the “Legislator Plaintiffs”) alleged New Mexico’s system of bail violated the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as well as the procedural and substantive components of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs further alleged the rules governing New Mexico’s system of bail were promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court in violation of the New Mexico Constitution. Defendants-Appellees were the New Mexico Supreme Court and its justices; the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, its chief judge, and its court executive officer; and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, its chief judge, and its court executive officer. They moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing, Defendants were immune from suit, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Defendants also moved for Rule 11 sanctions on the basis that Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed suit without adequately researching the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim that Defendants’ Rule 11 motion violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because it found that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lacked standing, Defendants were immune from suit, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The district court also granted Defendants’ motion for sanctions and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Plaintiffs timely appealed, but finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Collins v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez challenges his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and his accompanying sentence of death. The victim, Olimpia Fisher, and her adult daughter, Katya Chacon, lived with Cuesta-Rodriguez in a home Fisher and Cuesta-Rodriguez had purchased together. In the year following the home purchase, Cuesta-Rodriguez and Fisher’s relationship was strained. Cuesta- Rodriguez feared Fisher was cheating on him. Whenever Fisher and Chacon would leave the house, Cuesta-Rodriguez would question them “about where they were going and what they would be doing.” The relationship deteriorated to the point that both Cuesta-Rodriguez and Fisher wanted the other to move out. An argument between the two ended when Cuesta-Rodriquez shot Fisher in both eyes. The district court denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). The Tenth Circuit concluded Cuesta-Rodriguez was not persuasive in his argument that combined errors led to a trial that wasn’t “fundamentally fair.” As such, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment that Cuesta-Rodriquez was not entitled to relief. View "Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenter" on Justia Law