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

The case involves the suppression of DNA evidence obtained through a search warrant. The warrant affidavit included a false statement made by New Mexico Highlands University Police Chief Clarence Romero to FBI Agent Bryan Acee, who then included it in the affidavit. The district court suppressed the evidence, ruling that the inclusion of the false statement violated Franks v. Delaware, which prohibits recklessly or intentionally including a material, false statement in a search-warrant affidavit.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found that Chief Romero's false statement was material to the finding of probable cause and that it was made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court also rejected the Government's argument that Franks did not apply to Chief Romero because he was off duty and lacked an official investigatory role. The court held that Franks extends to off-duty officers who are actually involved in an investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Franks applies to off-duty officers who are actually involved in an investigation with the knowledge and acquiescence of on-duty officers. The court reviewed the district court's finding for clear error and affirmed the decision, noting that Chief Romero's actions and the reliance of other officers on his information demonstrated his involvement in the investigation. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order suppressing the DNA evidence. View "United States v. Norton" on Justia Law

Fiorisce, LLC, a limited liability company, filed a qui tam lawsuit against Colorado Technical University (CTU) under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging that CTU misrepresented compliance with federal credit hour requirements to fraudulently obtain federal student aid funds. Fiorisce claimed that CTU's online learning platform, Intellipath, provided insufficient educational content and falsified learning hour calculations to meet federal standards. Fiorisce's principal, a former CTU faculty member, created the company to protect their identity while exposing the alleged fraud.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case. CTU moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the FCA’s public disclosure bar precluded the suit because the allegations were substantially similar to previously disclosed information. The district court denied CTU’s motion, finding that Fiorisce’s specific claims about misrepresentation of credit hours and the use of Intellipath were not substantially the same as prior disclosures. The court also suggested that Fiorisce might qualify as an original source of the information.CTU appealed the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, seeking interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the collateral order doctrine did not apply, as the public disclosure bar did not confer a right to avoid trial and could be effectively reviewed after final judgment. The court emphasized that expanding the collateral order doctrine to include such denials would undermine the final judgment rule and dismissed CTU’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fiorisce, LLC v. Colorado Technical University" on Justia Law

The Center for Biological Diversity and 350 Colorado challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that partially approved Colorado’s plan to reduce ozone pollution. The Clean Air Act required Colorado to lower ozone levels by July 2021, but the state failed to meet this deadline. Petitioners argued that the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s plan violated the Clean Air Act in three ways: by approving the plan after the deadline, by including state-only emissions reductions, and by violating the anti-backsliding provision.The EPA approved Colorado’s reasonable-further-progress demonstration and motor-vehicle-emissions budget, determining that the state showed emissions reductions of at least three percent per year from 2018 to 2020. The EPA also found that the SIP’s projected emissions reductions were based on creditable, federally enforceable measures and complied with the anti-backsliding mandate. Petitioners argued that the EPA’s approval was unlawful because the state failed to attain the required ozone levels by the deadline and included non-federally enforceable control measures in its calculations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the EPA did not act unlawfully in approving Colorado’s reasonable-further-progress demonstration after the state missed its attainment deadline. The court found that reasonable-further-progress demonstrations are distinct from attainment demonstrations and that the EPA’s approval was based on compliance with reasonable-further-progress requirements. The court also held that the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s motor-vehicle-emissions budget was lawful, as it was consistent with reasonable-further-progress requirements. Additionally, the court found that the EPA’s approval did not violate the anti-backsliding provision, as the SIP revisions would not increase emissions and would not hinder attainment.The court denied the petition for review, upholding the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s plan. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Anthony Brian Walker, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, was convicted of first-degree murder in Indian Country after an altercation with three teenagers in Ada, Oklahoma. On November 29, 2021, Walker was riding his bicycle when he encountered the teenagers in a red SUV. After a confrontation where Walker spat at the car and punched one of the teenagers, Jason Hubbard, Walker later approached the SUV with a knife and stabbed Hubbard, who subsequently died from the wound. Walker turned himself in the next day and admitted to the stabbing, claiming he acted because he believed Hubbard had a gun.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over Walker's trial. Walker's defense included claims of self-defense and heat of passion. He requested jury instructions on these defenses, as well as on second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The district court provided instructions on self-defense and the lesser-included offenses but did not include an instruction on imperfect self-defense, as Walker did not request it. The jury found Walker guilty of first-degree murder.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Walker argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on imperfect self-defense and the government's burden to disprove it. The Tenth Circuit held that Walker did not preserve this argument because he never requested an imperfect self-defense instruction at trial. The court found no plain error in the district court's failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense, as it was not required to do so without a specific request. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Walker's conviction. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

The case involves the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) second attempt to regulate small, high-powered magnets that pose serious health risks to children when ingested. These magnets, used in various consumer products like jewelry and puzzles, can cause severe internal injuries or death if swallowed. The CPSC's first attempt to regulate these magnets was struck down by the Tenth Circuit in 2016 due to inadequate data supporting the rule. The CPSC then revised its approach and issued a new rule, which is now being challenged by industry groups.The industry groups petitioned for review of the CPSC's new rule, arguing that the CPSC's cost-benefit analysis was flawed and that the rule was promulgated by an unconstitutionally structured agency. They contended that the CPSC's data on magnet ingestions was unreliable, that the CPSC failed to consider the impact of its own enforcement efforts, and that the rule was underinclusive and arbitrary. They also argued that existing voluntary standards were sufficient to address the risks posed by the magnets.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the CPSC's rule was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the CPSC had adequately addressed the shortcomings identified in the previous case and had conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis. The court also held that the CPSC's structure, which includes removal protections for its commissioners, was constitutional, reaffirming its previous decision in Leachco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission.The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review, upholding the CPSC's rule regulating small, high-powered magnets. The court concluded that the rule was necessary to address the significant health risks posed by these magnets and that the CPSC had acted within its authority in promulgating the rule. View "Magnetsafety.org v. Consumer Product Safety Commission" on Justia Law

Christopher Kee was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian country following an altercation with his then-girlfriend, Candace Chinchillas, in April 2020. The couple had a tumultuous relationship marked by excessive drinking and mutual accusations of abuse. Kee claimed that the stabbing incident was an act of self-defense, while Chinchillas described it as a violent attack. Kee was acquitted of three other counts of assault, which had more corroborative evidence, but was convicted on Count 2, which relied heavily on the conflicting testimonies of Kee and Chinchillas.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over Kee's trial. Kee did not object during the trial to the prosecution's use of his post-Miranda silence to impeach his testimony. After being convicted and sentenced, Kee filed a timely appeal, arguing that his due process rights were violated under Doyle v. Ohio, which prohibits the use of a defendant's post-Miranda silence for impeachment purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Kee's appeal. The court agreed with Kee that the prosecution's repeated references to his post-Miranda silence constituted a clear violation of Doyle. The court applied the plain error review standard, which requires showing that the error was plain, affected substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court found that the Doyle violation affected Kee's substantial rights because the case hinged on the credibility of Kee and Chinchillas, and the improper impeachment could have influenced the jury's verdict.The Tenth Circuit vacated Kee's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Kee" on Justia Law

Jimmy Lee Brooks was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of ammunition and witness tampering. The incident involved Brooks becoming irate at a beauty supply store, threatening his girlfriend S.J. with a knife, and subsequently shooting at a vehicle she was in, injuring her. Brooks was arrested after a search led police to his cousin's apartment, where he had expressed intent to kill S.J. and her family.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Brooks to 235 months in prison, applying a cross-reference to the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder, which requires a finding of specific intent to kill. Brooks appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of specific intent to kill.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the district court had found by a preponderance of the evidence that Brooks shot at S.J. with the specific intent to kill her. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the evidence, including surveillance footage and witness testimony, supported the finding that Brooks acted with specific intent to kill. The court emphasized that firing a gun at another person can support an inference of intent to kill and found that the district court did not err in applying the cross-reference for attempted murder. The Tenth Circuit thus affirmed Brooks' sentence. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant William Clayton Brown, while under the influence of methamphetamine, broke into a locked bathroom and fatally stabbed Damion Martin, who was embracing Brown's sister, Lacie Watson. Brown claimed he believed Martin was going to kill Watson. The Government charged Brown with First-Degree Murder in Indian Country. Brown requested jury instructions on defense of another and involuntary manslaughter, but the district court refused, citing insufficient evidence for the defense of another and omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction without explanation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma convicted Brown of first-degree murder. However, the court later granted Brown's Rule 29 motion for acquittal on the first-degree murder charge, finding insufficient evidence of premeditation, and entered a judgment of guilty for second-degree murder, sentencing Brown to life imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court plainly erred by omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction based on the theory of imperfect defense of another. The Tenth Circuit found that Brown presented sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction, as multiple witnesses testified that Brown believed Martin was going to harm Watson. The omission of this instruction affected Brown's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed Brown's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Coti D’Shayne Davis pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing to allow Davis to allocute and to make specific findings concerning a special condition of supervised release. On remand, the district court allowed Davis to allocute, struck the special condition, but again imposed the same sentence.Davis appealed, challenging a two-point addition to his criminal history score based on a misdemeanor conviction for consumption of liquor by a minor. The district court had overruled Davis’s objection, construing it as an argument that the conviction should be considered a juvenile status offense and thus not counted in his criminal history score. The court concluded that the conviction did not fit the definition of a juvenile status offense because Davis was over 18 when it occurred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis’s underage drinking conviction, which he received at 20 years old, is “similar to” a juvenile status offense under the guidelines. The court reasoned that the elements of the offense and the conduct underlying the conviction were similar to a juvenile status offense, and that common sense dictated that the conviction should not be included in Davis’s criminal history score. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate Davis’s sentence and resentence him without the two-point addition. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Ricky Koel sought emergency care at Citizens Medical Center in Colby, Kansas, after sustaining serious injuries to his right eye. He was evaluated by a triage nurse, a physician assistant, and Dr. Daniel Kuhlman, who suspected a possible globe rupture. Dr. Sam Funk, an optometrist, also examined Koel but did not confirm an open globe rupture. A CT scan indicated a possible globe rupture, but Dr. Kuhlman did not share these results with the specialists. Koel was discharged with instructions to see an ophthalmologist the next morning. Despite undergoing emergency surgery the following day, Koel ultimately lost vision in his injured eye.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Koel's EMTALA claim, concluding that Citizens Medical Center did not violate the Act's requirements. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koel's state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Citizens Medical Center provided an appropriate medical screening examination within its capabilities and adhered to its own standard procedures, as required by EMTALA. The court also found that Citizens did not have actual knowledge of Koel's specific emergency medical condition (an occult globe rupture) and therefore was not obligated to stabilize him for that condition before discharge. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Citizens Medical Center. View "Koel v. Citizens Medical Center" on Justia Law