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

The case involves Early Willard Woodmore, III, who was convicted for his role in a methamphetamine distribution enterprise in eastern Oklahoma. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began investigating the Woodmore organization in 2018 after receiving a tip about methamphetamine shipments. Early Woodmore, along with his siblings Calvin and Amber, led the organization. They received methamphetamine from Kimberly Noel in California, who shipped the drugs concealed in everyday objects. The organization distributed the drugs in smaller quantities throughout eastern Oklahoma. Early Woodmore was arrested in April 2019 and continued to communicate with his sister Amber, who took over operations. The DEA intercepted a significant methamphetamine shipment in August 2019, leading to further charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Early Woodmore on five counts, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and money laundering. He proceeded to a joint trial with his brother Calvin in April 2022. The jury convicted Early Woodmore on all counts, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and 240 months for the money laundering charges, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Early Woodmore raised three main challenges: judicial bias due to the district court's handling of a custody dispute during the trial, an erroneous jury instruction regarding the right of attorneys to interview witnesses, and the lack of a definitional instruction for "methamphetamine (actual)." The Tenth Circuit rejected all three challenges. The court found no judicial bias, upheld the jury instruction on attorney interviews, and determined that the term "methamphetamine (actual)" was sufficiently clear based on the evidence presented at trial. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Woodmore" on Justia Law

Brandon K. Thompson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The incident occurred when employees at an AT&T store in Sandy, Utah, noticed Thompson tampering with Apple watches. After confronting him about a missing watch, an employee activated a security alarm, alerting the police. When officers arrived, Thompson initially agreed to a pat-down but then fled the store. During the ensuing chase, Thompson grabbed an officer's firearm, partially pulling it out of the holster and firing a round into the ground. He was eventually subdued and detained.The United States District Court for the District of Utah reviewed the case, where Thompson was found guilty and sentenced to 110 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Thompson appealed, arguing that the jury instructions on actual possession were incorrect, the jury was not instructed on his theory of the case, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate knowing possession, and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions regarding actual possession, as the instructions accurately stated the law. The court also found that the district court adequately conveyed Thompson’s theory of the case through its instructions. Furthermore, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence to show that Thompson had actual possession of the firearm, given the video evidence and witness testimonies. Lastly, the court affirmed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause, citing precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Federal law criminalizes the possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Jorge Enrique Barragan-Gutierrez was indicted for this crime after a firearm and drugs were found in his home. He admitted to receiving a gun as payment in a drug transaction and pleaded guilty, resulting in a 211-month sentence, later reduced to 181 months. He now challenges his sentence through a habeas petition, arguing that recent Supreme Court decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi render his sentence unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming denied his petition, finding it time-barred. The court concluded that the Supreme Court decisions did not apply retroactively to his case and that his argument would fail on the merits because he was convicted for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime, not merely for possession.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Supreme Court's decisions in Bruen and Rahimi did not recognize a new constitutional right applicable to Barragan-Gutierrez’s circumstances. The court noted that these decisions did not extend to relieve felons convicted before those rulings. Consequently, Barragan-Gutierrez’s petition was deemed untimely, as the one-year period to challenge his conviction had passed in 2016. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his petition. View "United States v. Barragan-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Germaine Coulter was found guilty of child sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit child sex trafficking, resulting in a 360-month imprisonment sentence. The district court ordered Coulter to pay $386,000 in restitution to two victims. Coulter appealed, arguing that the government failed to prove he was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries and that the restitution amount was unsupported by evidence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma initially handled the case, where Coulter was convicted by a jury on two counts. He appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both. Following the appeal, the government sought restitution, and the district court awarded $198,000 for Doe 1 and $188,000 for Doe 2, covering ten years of therapy, psychiatric treatment, and medication. The court rejected the government's request for lifetime treatment costs and lost wages, finding them speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government met its burden of proving Coulter was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries, as the expert testimony established a direct link between the victims' symptoms and the sex trafficking. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to limit the restitution to ten years, as it was a reasonable projection based on the evidence presented. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution award. View "United States v. Coulter" on Justia Law

David Knellinger and Robert Storey discovered that the state of Colorado had taken possession of their property under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA). They filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Colorado's unclaimed property scheme violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs alleged that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation and did not provide them with notice or compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. The court found that Knellinger and Storey failed to sufficiently allege ownership of the property at issue, partly because they did not file an administrative claim to establish ownership as required by RUUPA. The district court also dismissed the plaintiffs' equitable claims, concluding that § 1983 provided an adequate basis for obtaining just compensation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief. The appellate court held that Knellinger and Storey had plausibly alleged that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation, which is sufficient to confer standing. The court emphasized that property owners need not file administrative claims with Colorado before suing for just compensation under the Takings Clause. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' equitable claims, as § 1983 provides an adequate remedy for obtaining just compensation.The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' damages claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Knellinger v. Young" on Justia Law

Two elderly individuals, Ms. Penelope Lamle and Ms. Maxine Houston, applied for Medicaid but faced delays and additional questions from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, allegedly directed by attorney Susan Eads. They refused to answer these questions and subsequently sued, seeking an expedited decision, payment of Medicaid benefits, and damages. Both applicants died during the litigation, and their estates were substituted as parties in the appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the action with prejudice, citing the plaintiffs' failure to state a valid claim. However, the court was unaware that the applicants had died while the action was pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the claims for an injunction became moot when the agency denied benefits and the applicants died. The court noted that the requested relief would no longer benefit the estates, as the Oklahoma Department of Human Services had already denied the applications. The court also held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the requested retrospective relief. Consequently, the court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment on the claim for a prospective injunction and dismiss it without prejudice.Regarding the claim against Ms. Eads in her individual capacity, the Tenth Circuit held that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing the violation of a clearly established right. As a result, the court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the claim for damages against Ms. Eads. View "Lamle v. Eads" on Justia Law

Derek Ray Flaming was convicted of distribution and receipt of obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children, aggravated sexual abuse, and attempting to cause a minor to engage in a sexual act by placing her in fear. The charges stemmed from incidents involving his minor stepdaughter, Jane Doe, in South Korea and Colorado. Flaming showed Doe child pornography, sexually assaulted her, and attempted to obtain oral sex from her. Evidence included Skype messages where Flaming threatened to assault Doe if his wife did not return home immediately.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma convicted Flaming on all counts. Flaming appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings. He argued that the government failed to prove he was not a South Korean national, that there was insufficient evidence he received child pornography, and that there was insufficient evidence he placed Doe in fear to engage in a sexual act. He also contended that the district court improperly limited cross-examination of Doe and erroneously admitted summaries of Skype chats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Flaming was not a South Korean national, since the Department of Defense records and other evidence indicated he was solely a U.S. citizen. The court also found sufficient evidence that Flaming received child pornography, since the images were found on a computer he had access to, and his personal Skype account was used to send child pornographic images. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Flaming placed Doe in fear, given his previous sexual abuse and the circumstances of the incident.The court rejected Flaming’s evidentiary challenges, ruling that the district court did not violate his Confrontation Clause rights or abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, since Flaming failed to lay a proper foundation for the alleged prior inconsistent statements. The court also upheld the admission of summaries of Skype chats, finding they were accurate and the underlying information was admissible and voluminous. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "U.S. v. Flaming" on Justia Law

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