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

Germaine Coulter was found guilty of child sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit child sex trafficking, resulting in a 360-month imprisonment sentence. The district court ordered Coulter to pay $386,000 in restitution to two victims. Coulter appealed, arguing that the government failed to prove he was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries and that the restitution amount was unsupported by evidence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma initially handled the case, where Coulter was convicted by a jury on two counts. He appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both. Following the appeal, the government sought restitution, and the district court awarded $198,000 for Doe 1 and $188,000 for Doe 2, covering ten years of therapy, psychiatric treatment, and medication. The court rejected the government's request for lifetime treatment costs and lost wages, finding them speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government met its burden of proving Coulter was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries, as the expert testimony established a direct link between the victims' symptoms and the sex trafficking. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to limit the restitution to ten years, as it was a reasonable projection based on the evidence presented. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution award. View "United States v. Coulter" on Justia Law

David Knellinger and Robert Storey discovered that the state of Colorado had taken possession of their property under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA). They filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Colorado's unclaimed property scheme violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs alleged that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation and did not provide them with notice or compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. The court found that Knellinger and Storey failed to sufficiently allege ownership of the property at issue, partly because they did not file an administrative claim to establish ownership as required by RUUPA. The district court also dismissed the plaintiffs' equitable claims, concluding that § 1983 provided an adequate basis for obtaining just compensation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief. The appellate court held that Knellinger and Storey had plausibly alleged that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation, which is sufficient to confer standing. The court emphasized that property owners need not file administrative claims with Colorado before suing for just compensation under the Takings Clause. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' equitable claims, as § 1983 provides an adequate remedy for obtaining just compensation.The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' damages claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Knellinger v. Young" on Justia Law

Two elderly individuals, Ms. Penelope Lamle and Ms. Maxine Houston, applied for Medicaid but faced delays and additional questions from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, allegedly directed by attorney Susan Eads. They refused to answer these questions and subsequently sued, seeking an expedited decision, payment of Medicaid benefits, and damages. Both applicants died during the litigation, and their estates were substituted as parties in the appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the action with prejudice, citing the plaintiffs' failure to state a valid claim. However, the court was unaware that the applicants had died while the action was pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the claims for an injunction became moot when the agency denied benefits and the applicants died. The court noted that the requested relief would no longer benefit the estates, as the Oklahoma Department of Human Services had already denied the applications. The court also held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the requested retrospective relief. Consequently, the court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment on the claim for a prospective injunction and dismiss it without prejudice.Regarding the claim against Ms. Eads in her individual capacity, the Tenth Circuit held that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing the violation of a clearly established right. As a result, the court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the claim for damages against Ms. Eads. View "Lamle v. Eads" on Justia Law

Derek Ray Flaming was convicted of distribution and receipt of obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children, aggravated sexual abuse, and attempting to cause a minor to engage in a sexual act by placing her in fear. The charges stemmed from incidents involving his minor stepdaughter, Jane Doe, in South Korea and Colorado. Flaming showed Doe child pornography, sexually assaulted her, and attempted to obtain oral sex from her. Evidence included Skype messages where Flaming threatened to assault Doe if his wife did not return home immediately.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma convicted Flaming on all counts. Flaming appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings. He argued that the government failed to prove he was not a South Korean national, that there was insufficient evidence he received child pornography, and that there was insufficient evidence he placed Doe in fear to engage in a sexual act. He also contended that the district court improperly limited cross-examination of Doe and erroneously admitted summaries of Skype chats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Flaming was not a South Korean national, since the Department of Defense records and other evidence indicated he was solely a U.S. citizen. The court also found sufficient evidence that Flaming received child pornography, since the images were found on a computer he had access to, and his personal Skype account was used to send child pornographic images. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Flaming placed Doe in fear, given his previous sexual abuse and the circumstances of the incident.The court rejected Flaming’s evidentiary challenges, ruling that the district court did not violate his Confrontation Clause rights or abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, since Flaming failed to lay a proper foundation for the alleged prior inconsistent statements. The court also upheld the admission of summaries of Skype chats, finding they were accurate and the underlying information was admissible and voluminous. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "U.S. v. Flaming" on Justia Law

Luis Gutierrez was arrested in May 2020 after New Mexico state officers found a loaded, stolen pistol in his motel room. He was charged with both federal and state crimes. In October 2021, he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a household member in state court and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. He was released on May 5, 2022. Gutierrez was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm on August 11, 2020, while in state custody. However, he was not notified of the federal charge until his release from state custody.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court found that the delay in the federal case was justified due to complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that Gutierrez failed to show any prejudice caused by the delay. Gutierrez then pleaded guilty to the federal charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the multi-factor test from Barker v. Wingo and found that while the length of the delay and Gutierrez’s assertion of his right favored him, the reason for the delay was neutral, and he failed to show any prejudice. The court held that the Speedy Trial clause does not apply to postconviction sentencing and that Gutierrez’s alleged harm at sentencing was not cognizable under the Sixth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court’s decision and found that Gutierrez’s appellate waiver was enforceable, barring his challenge to the application of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6 to enhance his sentence. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Gary Jordan, the defendant, pled guilty to armed bank robbery and other crimes, receiving a thirty-year prison sentence. After his plea, he discovered that prosecutors had recorded his attorney-client meetings before he entered his plea. Although the prosecutors claimed they did not watch the recordings, Jordan moved to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the prosecutors' actions rendered his plea unconstitutionally unknowing and involuntary.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Jordan's motion, stating that he could only challenge his guilty plea through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the alleged unconstitutional conduct occurred before the plea. Jordan did not raise a claim of prejudice or ineffective assistance of counsel, relying solely on the structural-error theory from Shillinger v. Haworth. The district court concluded that Jordan could not prevail on this basis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that under Tollett v. Henderson, a defendant who has pled guilty cannot raise independent claims of constitutional violations that occurred before the plea. Instead, the defendant must show that the plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the plea was induced by threats, misrepresentations, or improper prosecutorial promises. The court found that Jordan's challenge failed because he did not pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and relied solely on the now-overruled structural-error rule from Shillinger. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jordan's motion to vacate his guilty plea. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Stacie Culp and Stephanie Peters, both servers at Remington of Montrose Golf Club, LLC, alleged they were sexually harassed by bartender Jason DeSalvo. They filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) for sexual harassment and retaliation. Remington's management conducted a limited investigation, resulting in DeSalvo's suspension and demotion. Culp claimed her hours were reduced in retaliation, leading to her resignation. Peters alleged inadequate investigation and retaliation, including being scheduled to work with DeSalvo post-suspension, leading to her departure.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment for Remington on Peters's retaliation claim but allowed other claims to proceed to trial. The jury found against Peters on her remaining claims and returned inconsistent special verdicts on Culp's claims, awarding her punitive damages under Title VII despite finding no violation of her rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment on Peters's retaliation claim, holding that neither the inadequate investigation nor the scheduling with DeSalvo constituted materially adverse actions. However, the court found the jury's verdict on Culp's claims irreconcilably inconsistent and vacated the verdict, remanding for a new trial on her harassment and retaliation claims. The court upheld the district court's evidentiary rulings, noting that objections to the admission of certain evidence were not properly preserved for appeal. View "Culp v. Remington of Montrose Golf Club" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on charges of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He reached a plea agreement with the government to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge in exchange for the dismissal of the distribution charge. However, during the change-of-plea hearing, the defendant claimed he was only partially guilty and stated that he joined the conspiracy under duress. Consequently, the district court rejected his guilty plea. The defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted on both charges.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming initially handled the case. After the defendant's guilty plea was rejected, the case went to trial, where a jury found him guilty of both conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. The defendant appealed the district court's decision to reject his guilty plea.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the district court erred in rejecting his guilty plea, asserting that his plea colloquy provided a sufficient factual basis for the plea and did not establish a duress defense. The Tenth Circuit assumed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea but held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea. The court noted that the district court had the discretion to reject a guilty plea when the defendant claims innocence, and it found no plain error in the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC transitioned a petroleum refinery into a renewable diesel production facility in 2021. During this transition, HollyFrontier reassigned work from hourly workers to salaried employees with higher education and technical expertise. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 11-574 filed a grievance, alleging that this reassignment violated their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). An arbitrator ruled in favor of HollyFrontier on the reassignment issue but also decided that salaried employees should be included in the bargaining unit, an issue not submitted for arbitration.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming reviewed the case and granted HollyFrontier's petition to vacate the arbitrator's decision regarding the inclusion of salaried employees in the bargaining unit. The court reasoned that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by deciding an issue that was not submitted for arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award. The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by addressing an issue not submitted for arbitration. The parties had only submitted the issue of whether HollyFrontier's reassignment of work violated the CBA, and the arbitrator's decision to include salaried employees in the bargaining unit was beyond the scope of the submitted issue. The court emphasized that arbitration is limited to the issues the parties agree to submit, and the arbitrator must stay within those bounds. View "HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. United Steel Paper" on Justia Law

The case involves Plaintiff Tyler Luethje, who filed a § 1983 complaint against Defendants Travis Kyle and Scott Kelly, both employed by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. On February 11, 2022, the deputies responded to a 911 call about a broken window at Luethje’s residence. Upon arrival, they sent a police canine, Sig, into the house without announcing themselves. Sig bit Luethje, who was in bed, and continued to bite him while the deputies questioned him. Luethje was then handcuffed and taken to the hospital. He was not charged with any crime.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case and denied the deputies' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that the deputies violated Luethje’s Fourth Amendment rights regarding unlawful entry and search, unlawful arrest, and excessive force. The court found that the law clearly established these rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the deputies’ actions violated Luethje’s constitutional rights and that these rights were clearly established. The court found that the deputies lacked an objectively reasonable belief in an ongoing emergency to justify the warrantless entry, did not have probable cause for the arrest, and used excessive force by allowing the canine to continue biting Luethje after he was subdued. View "Luethje v. Kyle" on Justia Law