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

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

Charles Warner was convicted in federal district court in New Mexico for being a felon in possession of a firearm and dealing in firearms without a license. Warner appealed his conviction on four grounds: he argued that he was not prohibited from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), that his suppression challenge regarding evidence seized at his house was improperly denied, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of dealing in firearms without a license, and that the number of firearms in his possession was improperly counted.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Warner's pre-trial motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge and his motion to suppress evidence seized from his computers. At trial, Warner testified that he knew he was a convicted felon but did not know he was prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. The jury convicted Warner on both counts. At sentencing, the district court applied a sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms, based on expert testimony, and sentenced Warner to 33 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Warner is a "prohibited person" under § 922(g) because he has two prior state-law felony convictions for which he could have been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment and has not had all of his civil rights restored. The court also rejected Warner's constitutional challenge to § 922(g), holding that it is foreclosed by recent Tenth Circuit precedent. The court found that any alleged error in the denial of Warner's suppression motion was harmless because none of the evidence Warner sought to suppress was used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Warner of dealing in firearms without a license and affirmed the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Warner's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Warner" on Justia Law

Iron Bar Holdings, LLC, a private landowner in Wyoming, owns a checkerboarded ranch interspersed with federal and state public lands. The only way to access these public lands, other than by aircraft, is by corner-crossing, which involves stepping from one public parcel to another at their adjoining corners without touching the private land in between. In 2020 and 2021, a group of hunters from Missouri corner-crossed to hunt elk on the public lands within Iron Bar's ranch. Iron Bar's property manager confronted the hunters, and law enforcement was contacted, but no citations were issued. In 2021, the hunters were prosecuted for criminal trespass but were acquitted. Iron Bar then filed a civil lawsuit for trespassing, seeking $9 million in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted summary judgment in favor of the hunters, holding that corner-crossing without physically contacting private land and without causing damage does not constitute unlawful trespass. Iron Bar Holdings appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while Wyoming law recognizes a property owner's right to exclude others from their airspace, federal law, specifically the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) of 1885, overrides state law in this context. The UIA prohibits any inclosure of public lands that obstructs free passage or transit over them. The court found that Iron Bar's actions effectively enclosed public lands and prevented lawful access, which is prohibited by the UIA. The court affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the hunters to corner-cross as long as they did not physically touch Iron Bar's land. View "Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape" on Justia Law

Lance Maytubby was called to the police station by Officer T.J. White to answer questions regarding accusations of sexual abuse made by his nieces, R.L. and Z.L. During the interview, Officer White informed Maytubby that he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. The interview, which was recorded, took place in a non-coercive environment, and Officer White maintained a friendly tone. Despite initially denying the accusations, Maytubby eventually confessed after Officer White suggested that mitigating circumstances, such as Maytubby being a pastor and a family man, could be included in the report to the district attorney.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a pretrial suppression hearing where Officer White testified. The district court denied Maytubby's motion to suppress his confession, finding that the interrogation was not coercive and that Maytubby's statements were voluntary. The court noted factors such as the short duration of the interview, the non-coercive environment, and the absence of physical abuse or aggressive behavior by Officer White. A jury later convicted Maytubby on several counts of aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact, leading to a life sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer White's statements during the interview were not coercive and did not overbear Maytubby's will. The court found that the interview was conducted in a non-coercive manner, and Officer White's comments about including mitigating factors in the report were proper and did not imply control over sentencing. The court concluded that Maytubby's confession was voluntary and upheld the conviction. View "United States v. Maytubby" on Justia Law

Mr. Martin Lopez was convicted of carjacking and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The incident involved Mr. Lopez, his girlfriend, and her friend. The government claimed Mr. Lopez attempted to take his girlfriend’s car against her will, leading to a confrontation. Mr. Lopez raised two main issues on appeal: the introduction of testimonial hearsay violating evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause, and improper closing arguments by the prosecution.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico heard the case initially. During the trial, the government presented evidence including 911 call recordings, photos, and testimonies from lay witnesses and law enforcement officers. Mr. Lopez objected to parts of the officers' testimonies, arguing they implied hearsay from his girlfriend, who did not testify at trial. The district court overruled these objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the officers' testimonies did not clearly or obviously imply hearsay statements from Mr. Lopez’s girlfriend, as the testimonies were ambiguous and did not provide identifiable statements. The court also determined that the government’s closing arguments, which referenced threats against witnesses and their fears, were not plainly improper. The court noted that the statements were supported by evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.The Tenth Circuit concluded that there were no reversible errors in the district court’s handling of the hearsay objections or the closing arguments. Consequently, the court affirmed Mr. Lopez’s conviction. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law