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

New Mexico Rule of Professional Conduct 16-308(E) prohibited a prosecutor from subpoenaing a lawyer to present evidence about a past or present client in a grand-jury or other criminal proceeding unless such evidence was “essential” and “there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information.” In a lawsuit brought against the New Mexico Supreme Court and the state’s Disciplinary Board and Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the United States claimed that the enforcement of this rule against federal prosecutors licensed in New Mexico violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Rule 16-308(E) was preempted with respect to federal prosecutors practicing before grand juries, but was not preempted outside of the grand-jury context. With this conclusion, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. NM Supreme Court" on Justia Law

Emiliano Martinez pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered, short-barrel shotgun in violation of federal law. Under his plea agreement, Martinez reserved the right to appeal his sentence if the district court determined that his total offense level was greater than 23 under the 2014 United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court calculated his total offense level as 27 after applying a four-level enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. Central to this enhancement was the district court’s finding that Martinez had possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense: a burglary of the home from which the shotgun Martinez later possessed was stolen. On appeal, Martinez argued that the district court clearly erred at sentencing when it considered the hearsay statements of Eduardo Hernandez, who, in a police interview, had admitted to committing the burglary with Martinez. Martinez argued that Hernandez’s hearsay statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Michael Smith was charged with two counts of murder for the killings of Sarath Pulluru and Janet Moore. He was convicted and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal and denied his two applications for postconviction relief. Smith sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing, as relevant here, that: (1) he was ineligible for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled; (2) that the state trial court had erred in admitting Smith’s videotaped confession to the murders at trial; (3) that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in the presentation of his mitigation case; and (4) that cumulative error rendered his trial unfair. The district court denied habeas relief, and Smith appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Smith’s request for a certificate of appealability on these four issues, and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court found that Smith failed to demonstrate that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ rejection of his claims was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Smith v. Duckworth" on Justia Law

Jason Holland and his brother were accused of robbing a driver of her purse on a rural Oklahoma highway, and then unlawfully entering a home after their getaway car had a flat tire. At a joint trial, the state court allowed, as relevant here, two pieces of evidence to be introduced: (1) one of the victims’ statements that she saw Holland had Nazi tattoos on his arm, and (2) the other victim’s statement that she heard Holland’s brother confess to the robbery. The second victim thought she saw a black man in the back seat of Holland's car when the brother allegedly piped up saying “I did it. I did it. We don’t associate with black guys.” This evidence was admitted without objection and both brothers were convicted of the crimes. After his convictions became final on state direct review, Holland brought in federal court a petition for habeas relief. The district court granted relief on two grounds: (1) the introduction of the above evidence at trial deprived Holland of a fundamentally fair trial, and (2) Holland’s trial counsel’s failure to object to the evidence deprived him of constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Applying the deferential standard of review contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to the holding of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court law in finding that the evidence at issue here did not substantially affect the outcome of the trial. View "Holland v. Allbaugh" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, Defendants-Appellants Adan Molina, Fidencio Verdin-Garcia, and Miguel Romero appealed denials of their respective motions for sentence reduction. Defendants relied upon U.S.S.G. Amendments 782 & 788 which retroactively lowered the base offense levels for many drug quantities listed in the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, defendants sought reversal of these denials on the basis that the district courts erred by failing to address their material, nonfrivolous arguments. Finding no reversible error in either case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Verdin-Garcia" on Justia Law

Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. provided physical therapy and skilled nursing services to “homebound” Medicare patients. It sought reimbursement from Medicare for services provided. The definition of who qualified as "homebound" or what services qualified as "reasonable and necessary" was unclear, even to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS has developed its own rules on both subjects that had been repeatedly revised and expanded over time. In an audit, CMS purported to find that Caring Hearts provided services to at least a handful of patients who didn’t qualify as “homebound” or for whom the services rendered weren’t “reasonable and necessary.” As a result, CMS ordered Caring Hearts to repay the government over $800,000. It was later found that in reaching its conclusions CMS applied the wrong law: the agency did not apply the regulations in force in 2008 when Caring Hearts provided the services in dispute. Instead, it applied considerably more onerous regulations the agency adopted years later, "[r]egulations that Caring Hearts couldn’t have known about at the time it provided its services." The Tenth Circuit found that Caring Hearts "[made] out a pretty good case that its services were entirely consistent with the law as it was at the time they were rendered" when CMS denied Caring Hearts' request for reconsideration. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment affirming CMS' denial to Caring Hearts for reimbursement, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Caring Hearts v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Jimma Pal Reat was driving in Denver when he called 911 to report that several men had thrown a bottle and broken the rear windshield of the car he was driving. Operator Juan Rodriguez took the call. Reat told Rodriguez that though the attack occurred at Tenth Avenue and Sheridan in Denver, he and his passengers fled to safety in nearby Wheat Ridge. For reasons that were unclear, Rodriguez told Reat that because the attack took place in Denver, he needed to return to Denver to receive help from the police. Reat was shot and killed after driving back to Denver, into the path of his armed assailants. His estate sued the 911 operator, alleging civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various state law claims. Rodriguez moved for summary judgment on all claims against him on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment in his favor on all constitutional claims except for a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim based on a theory of state-created danger. Under that claim, Reat’s Estate contended Rodriguez used his governmental authority to subject him to the callous shooting that caused Reat’s death. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the law was not clearly established such that a reasonable 911 operator would have known his conduct violated Reat’s constitutional rights. The court therefore reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Rodriguez. View "Estate of Jimma Pal Reat v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Robert Adair was a firefighter with the City of Muskogee, Oklahoma (the City) when he injured his back during a training exercise. As a result of his injury, Adair completed a functional-capacity evaluation that measured and limited his lifting capabilities. After two years on paid leave, Adair received a workers’ compensation award definitively stating that Adair’s lifting restrictions were permanent. The same month he received his award, Adair retired from the Muskogee Fire Department. Adair argued that his retirement was a constructive discharge: he claimed that the City forced him to choose between being fired and retiring, which, he contended, discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and retaliated against him for receiving a workers’ compensation award in violation of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act, Okla. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment. "Unfortunately, in analyzing Adair’s discrimination claims, neither the parties nor the district court recognized the changes that Congress made to the ADA in enacting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)." Notwithstanding this error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. "Even if the City regarded Adair as having an impairment, Adair cannot show that he was qualified to meet the physical demands required of firefighters or that the City could reasonably accommodate his lifting restrictions." View "Adair v. City of Muskogee" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee Clifton Bennett pleaded guilty to federal child pornography charges and the district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months of imprisonment to be followed by several conditions of supervised release. Bennett and the government each contended the district court erred at sentencing: the government argued the court should have found Bennett had a prior Colorado conviction relating to child pornography, which would trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence; Bennett challenged the imposition of special condition of supervised release that required he undergo mandatory testing for sexual attraction to minors. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Bennett’s prior Colorado misdemeanor conviction for sexual exploitation of a child "relates to" child pornography, and he was therefore eligible for the mandatory minimum. With regard to Bennett's challenge, the Court was "faced with too many speculative factors, too far in the future, to make a decision sounding in constitutional principles, so we dismiss Bennett’s cross-appeal without prejudice on ripeness grounds." View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Leonard Lopez appealed after a bench trial on his medical negligence claims. Lopez underwent lower back surgery at the Veterans Administration Medical Center of Denver, Colorado (VA Hospital), in order to alleviate longstanding sciatic pain. Immediately following surgery, however, Lopez began experiencing excruciating pain in his left foot. Lopez has since been diagnosed with neuropathic pain syndrome. Lopez filed suit against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging, in pertinent part, that: (1) Dr. Samuel Waller was negligent in performing the surgery; and (2) that the hospital was negligent in credentialing and privileging Dr. Glenn Kindt, the supervising physician involved in the surgery. At the conclusion of the trial the district court found in favor of the government on both claims. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States on Lopez’s claim of medical negligence involving Waller, but reversed the district court’s judgment on the negligent credentialing and privileging claim. The case was remanded with directions to dismiss that claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "Lopez v. United States" on Justia Law