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

A Mexican citizen, Ismael Vazquez-Garcia, was sentenced to 48 months for illegal reentry after being found by Border Patrol agents in New Mexico. He had previously been removed from the U.S. following a 2018 child-abuse conviction. At sentencing, the district court questioned him about the child-abuse conviction, which involved allegations of molestation. The court then imposed an 18-month upward variance from the recommended sentencing range of 24 to 30 months.The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico had adopted the unobjected-to allegations in the presentence report (PSR) about the child-abuse offense and varied upwards based on his criminal history. Vazquez-Garcia appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court erred by relying on the PSR's allegations and by varying upwards based on his criminal history, which he claimed was already accounted for in the Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Vazquez-Garcia had not shown his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because he did not object to the PSR's allegations, and the district court was permitted to adopt those unobjected-to facts. The court also found that the district court did not err by considering his criminal history for the upward variance. Additionally, the court ruled that the sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court's focus on the child-abuse conviction was relevant to multiple sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence. View "United States v. Vazquez-Garcia" on Justia Law

Manuel Lucero III, a convicted felon, pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. At his sentencing, the district court denied his motion for continuance and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment, an upward variance from the Guideline range of 57–71 months. The court based this decision on various factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, including the violent nature of Lucero’s offense and the need for adequate deterrence.Lucero appealed, arguing that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that the denial of his motion for continuance was improper. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had adequately explained the reasons for the sentencing enhancement, considering the § 3553(a) factors and the facts presented. The court also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, as Lucero was not materially prejudiced by the denial.The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error in explaining the upward variance, considering information in the presentence report, or relying on the officer’s testimony. The court also found that Lucero’s sentence was substantively reasonable, given his lengthy and violent criminal history and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, as the defense counsel lacked diligence, and the continuance was unlikely to have been helpful.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Lucero’s 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Lucero" on Justia Law

Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum in the United States, claiming that he faced persecution in India due to his political affiliation with the Mann party, a Sikh nationalist group. Singh testified that he was wrongfully arrested and tortured by Indian police in 2000, and that he was attacked twice by political opponents in 2017. He argued that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him from these private persecutors.An immigration judge (IJ) found Singh removable and denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal, concluding that Singh had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ noted that Singh had been acquitted of the false charges from 2000 and that the police officers involved had been removed from their positions. The IJ also found that Singh had not reported the 2017 attacks to the police, undermining his claim that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, emphasizing that Singh had not shown that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Singh's petition for review. The court held that the BIA did not misinterpret the "unable or unwilling" standard for asylum claims based on private persecution. The court found that the BIA had considered both the Indian government's willingness and ability to protect Singh. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Singh had not demonstrated that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The court noted that Singh had been acquitted of the false charges from 2000, that the police officers involved had been removed, and that Singh had not reported the 2017 attacks to the police. The court denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs created a Facebook page to discuss school-related matters in the Los Lunas School District. The Superintendent, Dana Sanders, found the page problematic and took actions including investigating the page, discussing it with others, filing a trademark for the school district's name, and issuing cease-and-desist letters demanding the page be deleted. The plaintiffs felt their First Amendment rights were being stifled and sued Sanders and the Los Lunas School Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Sanders's motion for summary judgment, holding that she was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Sanders's actions were retaliatory, speech-chilling, and legally frivolous, thus violating the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Sanders appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and agreed with the district court. The appellate court held that Sanders was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiffs had shown Sanders's conduct violated their constitutional rights and that the right was clearly established at the time of Sanders's actions. The court referenced a prior Tenth Circuit case, Beedle v. Wilson, which established that government actors violate the First Amendment when they threaten frivolous legal actions in retaliation for protected speech. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Sanders's motion for summary judgment. View "Tachias v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Tegan C. Gulley served a three-year term of supervised release after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Five days before his supervised release term expired, a petition to revoke his supervised release was filed, and a summons was issued. The district court delayed the revocation hearing for six months at Mr. Gulley’s request, during which he was ordered to remain on his already-expired term of supervision. Ultimately, the district court revoked his supervision and imposed a custodial sentence of 15 months.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially handled the case. The district court issued a summons before the expiration of Mr. Gulley’s supervised release term and set a revocation hearing for a month later. At the hearing, Mr. Gulley admitted to eight violations of his supervised release. The district court granted Mr. Gulley’s request to delay the revocation hearing for six months to allow him to demonstrate his compliance with the law. However, the district court unlawfully extended Mr. Gulley’s term of supervision during this period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation petition because the six-month delay was not “reasonably necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court unlawfully extended Mr. Gulley’s term of supervision, which had already expired, and therefore, the delay could not be deemed reasonably necessary. The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to release Mr. Gulley from custody. View "United States v. Gulley" on Justia Law

Joseph Gaye called 911 from his office, claiming he had been shot by a masked intruder. When officers arrived, they found no signs of forced entry or another person, but did find a bullet casing on Gaye's desk. Suspecting Gaye had shot himself, they obtained a search warrant and found a handgun in a locked drawer, with one bullet missing. The bullet removed from Gaye's leg at the hospital matched the handgun. Gaye, a felon, was indicted and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed, seeking to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant and the bullet removed from his leg.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Gaye's motion to suppress, finding the search warrant was adequately supported by probable cause and executed in good faith. The court also held that Gaye had consented to the removal of the bullet, thus relinquishing any privacy interest in it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the search warrant was sufficiently specific and executed in good faith. The court also found that Gaye had consented to the removal of the bullet, and thus, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The court concluded that the evidence obtained from the search and the bullet were admissible, and Gaye's conviction was upheld. View "United States v. Gaye" on Justia Law

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