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

Defendant Adan Humberto Dominguez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported. Prior to sentencing, the probation office recommended that the district court impose a sixteen-level enhancement to Dominguez-Rodriguez’s base offense level because Dominguez-Rodriguez was previously deported after having been convicted in federal court of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Dominguez-Rodriguez objected to the proposed sixteen-level enhancement. At sentencing, the district court sustained Dominguez-Rodriguez’s objection, imposed an eight-level enhancement, and sentenced Dominguez-Rodriguez to six months’ imprisonment. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to impose the sixteen-level enhancement. After review of the parties' arguments on appeal ,the Tenth Circuit agreed with the government and consequently remanded this case with instructions to vacate Dominguez-Rodriguez’s sentence and resentence. View "United States v. Dominguez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were then-current and former hourly employees in the slaughter and fabrication operations of a beef-processing plant in Greeley, Colorado, now owned by JBS USA, LLC (JBS). Plaintiffs were paid under the terms of collective-bargaining agreements negotiated between the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (the Union) and JBS. Plaintiffs filed suit against JBS in October 2010, claiming that they did not receive compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The disputes concerned when the work day began, when it ended, and what, if any, compensation was due when the production lines halt for a 30-minute meal break. After a bench trial the United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proof and entered judgment in favor of JBS. Finding no reversible error to the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Castaneda v. JBS S.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Steven Bonney sought habeas relief. When he was 17, five of his child relatives accused him of sexual abuse. Bonney entered into a plea agreement with the State of Wyoming and pleaded guilty to charges involving two of the children. The state district court accepted the plea, entering a judgment of conviction and sentenced Bonney to two consecutive terms of 15-20 years’ imprisonment (with the second term suspended in favor of probation for 15 years). Bonney sought post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel had been ineffective. The state district court denied relief on some claims and granted summary judgment to the State on other claims. Bonney then brought this federal habeas action. The federal district court granted habeas relief, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. On remand the district court granted summary judgment to the respondents the Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, the Wyoming Director of the Department of Corrections and the Wyoming Attorney General, and Bonney appealed. The Tenth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. In the habeas petition, Bonney claimed in part that his trial counsel had failed to adequately investigate the children’s accounts. The state district court declined to consider the merits of this claim, reasoning that Bonney had not raised the claim through a direct appeal. As a result, the federal district court considered the habeas claim procedurally defaulted. Because the federal district court erred in applying procedural default, it erred in not considering Bonney's claim on its merits. For this reason, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Bonney v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A jury found that Defendant-Appellant American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family) breached its insurance contract and unreasonably denied payment of underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits to Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick Adamscheck. On appeal, American Family challenged three district court rulings: (1) the district court’s decision denying American Family’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that workers’ compensation benefits could not be offset against any recovery at trial; (2) the district court’s pre-trial decision to exclude American Family’s biomechanics engineering expert; and (3) the district court’s post-verdict calculation of damages to include the jury’s award of $395,561 in UIM benefits, plus twice that amount for statutory damages on the unreasonable-denial-of-benefits claim. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, but vacated the verdict and remanded for additional proceedings. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court correctly determined that workers’ compensation benefits may not be offset against UIM coverage under Colorado law. But the district court failed to fulfill its gatekeeping obligation under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and therefore erred in excluding American Family’s expert. Because the record was inadequate to allow the Court to perform the district court’s gatekeeping function in the first instance, and because it could not conclude this error was harmless, the Tenth Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial. The Tenth Circuit did not reach American Family’s objection to the calculation of statutory damages, which was not first presented to the district court. View "Adamscheck v. American Family Mutual Ins." on Justia Law

Federal prisoner William Kurtz appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). His appointed counsel submitted an "Anders" brief stating this appeal presented no non-frivolous grounds for reversal. After carefully examining the record, the Tenth Circuit agreed, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed this appeal. View "United States v. Kurtz" on Justia Law

In 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) entered into a "Consent Judgment" with George Badger enjoining him from various activities and requiring him to pay $19.2 million. The government was only able to recover $6,548. It then sought a declaration that American Resources and Development, Inc. (ARDCO), Springfield Finance and Mortgage Company, LLC (Springfield), SB Trust, and ARDCO Leasing & Investment, LLC (ARDCO Leasing) (collectively, Defendants) were Badger’s alter egos so that their assets can be pursued to satisfy the Consent Judgment. While the claim was similar to one requesting to “pierce the veil” of a corporate entity and hold an individual liable for what on its face is a corporate debt, the Tenth Circuit saw the government's request in this case as a “reverse-piercing” claim because it sought to hold a corporation (or like entity) liable for the debt of an individual. The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted summary judgment for Defendants, ruling that the government’s reverse-piercing alter-ego theory was not available under Utah law. The Tenth Circuit rejected the district court's ruling, and held that Utah law recognizes the theory. The Court also rejected Defendants’ alternative ground for affirmance: that the claim is governed by the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and was therefore barred as untimely. The Tenth Circuit found the Act did not apply to this action to enforce a disgorgement order. View "United States v. Badger" on Justia Law

Defendant Ismael Mendoza appealed the denial of his motion to suppress drugs found in two ice chests in a vehicle he was driving. He argued: (1) that his consent to search the vehicle was invalid because he gave his consent while an officer was unlawfully detaining him; (2) that the search of the first chest exceeded the scope of his consent when the officer dumped its packaged contents (frozen seafood) on the pavement and pried open the chest’s lining; and (3) that the search and destruction of the second ice chest was unlawful because the officers did not have probable cause specific to that chest. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The officer had reasonable suspicion justifying Defendant’s detention when he consented to the search. The search of the first chest did not exceed the scope of Defendant’s consent; Defendant, who was observing the search, raised no objection to the manner of the search, and the officers’ actions did not destroy or render useless the chest or its contents before they saw a drug package in the lining. And the search of the second chest was lawful because the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle and destruction of the chest was reasonable in the circumstances. View "United States v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Several organizations, individuals, and businesses brought suit against Colorado’s governor, John Hickenlooper, arguing Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-12-112 and Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-12-302 (effective July 1, 2013) violated the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Tenth Circuit court surmised that from this litigation’s inception, "plaintiffs’ standing to assert these claims was less than assured." The district court concluded several Colorado sheriffs lacked standing to bring their claims and dismissed them from the case. After a nine-day bench trial, the district court expressed skepticism that any of the remaining plaintiffs had established standing to challenge the statutes at issue here. Nevertheless, “with the benefit of some generous assumptions,” it found that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge each statute. After winning the jurisdictional battle, however, the plaintiffs ultimately lost the war; the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant on all claims. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded the jurisdictional issue was not resolved as the district court had found. The Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing to bring any of their claims, and therefore vacated the district court’s order granting judgment for the defendant. The case was remanded with directions to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. View "Colorado Outfitters v. Hickenlooper" on Justia Law

Defendant Marvin Iverson was convicted by jury of engaging in a scheme to defraud JPMorgan Chase and Big Horn Federal Savings. The statute under which he was convicted required that the victims be “financial institutions.” To establish that element of the offense, the government offered the testimony of an FBI agent to try to prove that JPMorgan and Big Horn were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). On appeal Defendant argued that the agent’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay and violated the best-evidence rule. He also argued that even if the evidence was admissible, it was insufficient to prove that JPMorgan and Big Horn had FDIC insurance at the time of the offense. Despite the government’s concession to the contrary, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the agent’s testimony was not inadmissible hearsay; it was either not hearsay or fell within a hearsay exception. As for the best-evidence rule, Defendant did not raise the issue below and he had not shown plain error. The Court also rejected defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. View "United States v. Iverson" on Justia Law

Boardwalk Apartments, L.C. sued State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Co. for breach of an insurance policy, contending that State Auto had underpaid on the policy after one of Boardwalk’s eight apartment buildings (Building 1) was destroyed in a fire. In district court, State Auto contended that Boardwalk was underinsured under the policy’s coinsurance provision. Under this provision, Boardwalk’s insurance benefits were reduced if the value of the Boardwalk apartment complex exceeded the policy limit. Before trial, the district court issued two rulings: (1) for purposes of the policy’s coinsurance provision, the value of the apartment complex did not include the cost of complying with laws and ordinances regulating the construction and repair of buildings ("law-and-ordinance costs"); and (2) the district court excluded reference at trial to either the coinsurance provision or the possibility that Boardwalk was underinsured. At trial, the jury valued the Boardwalk complex below the policy limit. Based on this valuation, the district court concluded that Boardwalk was not underinsured under the coinsurance provision. In addition to valuing the apartment complex, the jury found that State Auto had underpaid for the loss of Building 1. As a result, the court awarded damages to Boardwalk. State Auto appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: (1) the district court abused its discretion by excluding reference to the coinsurance provision; and (2) incorrectly construed the coinsurance provision. In light of these errors, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Boardwalk Apartments v. State Auto Property" on Justia Law