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

Oklahoma state prisoner Antonio Milton requested a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. In 2007, Milton was prosecuted in two separate cases pending simultaneously before a state district court: a charge for crack cocaine trafficking; the other, involvement in a drive-by shooting. Because Milton had two earlier felony drug-trafficking convictions, the crack-cocaine-trafficking charge mandated life without parole if convicted. The State extended Milton at least one plea offer that covered at least one of Milton’s two cases. Milton ultimately rejected the offered plea deal(s) and went to trial in the drug-trafficking case, where he was convicted. After this, the State let the drive-by-shooting case lapse, leaving the court to dismiss it for lack of prosecution. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed all of Milton’s convictions and sentences, including the drug-trafficking conviction with its mandatory life-without-parole sentence. Later, Milton filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief and requested an evidentiary hearing in Oklahoma state district court. Relevant here, Milton argued “that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to assert on direct appeal that Milton’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Milton of a plea-bargain offer made by the prosecution prior to the preliminary hearing.” The state district court denied Milton’s application for post-conviction relief on his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. As Milton’s application for post-conviction relief proceeded through Oklahoma courts, the courts considered conflicting evidence about offers for a 20/20 Deal, a 25/20 Deal, and a supposed 23-year deal. The timing, communication, and existence of each of these deals were the basis of Milton's grounds for appeal here: had one of Milton's defense counsel offered Milton the 20/20 Deal minutes before the preliminary hearing, Milton could not have suffered prejudice from any earlier failure by his counsel to communicate a less favorable 23-year offer. But had defense counsel offered Milton the 25/20 Deal before the preliminary hearing, Milton could have suffered prejudice if his counsel failed to communicate a more favorable 23-year deal before the preliminary hearing. But the state courts denied Milton relief without ever determining whether the 23-year deal was ever offered, and if so, whether Milton’s counsel had told Milton about it. Milton sought a COA to appeal the denial of habeas relief, arguing again, he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. New evidence discovered at the federal evidentiary hearing assisted the Tenth Circuit's de novo review of Milton’s ineffective-assistance claims, and the Court concluded that all of them lacked merit. Accordingly, the Court denied Milton’s request for a COA on all bases presented. View "Milton v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant Mary Vernon was a physician licensed to practice in the State of Kansas. She co-authored a book with the late Dr. Robert Atkins, famous for a low-carbohydrate diet. Vernon also worked as the medical director for several nursing home facilities in the northeast Kansas area, and also provided consulting services to various entities, including the University of Kansas. In April 1999, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assigned Revenue Officer Joni Broadbent to collect from Vernon unpaid taxes for the 1997 tax year. Broadbent was subsequently assigned by the IRS to collect from Vernon unpaid taxes for the tax years 1991 through 1996. Although Vernon filed a tax return for 1997, she did not file a tax return for the years 1991 through 1996. Together, the unpaid taxes, penalties and interest for the tax years 1991 through 1997 totaled $1,432,299.38. After processing late returns, the IRS adjusted the amount owed by Vernon downwards to approximately $1.1 million. Vernon did not comply with deadlines set by the IRS for payment. As a result, Broadbent levied various investment and retirement accounts that Vernon held, and eventually seized Vernon's personal residence. At the time the IRS moved to seize Vernon's personal residence, the amount of unpaid taxes was approximately $543,015.11. The federal tax lien was eventually released so that Vernon could sell the residence without encumbrance. Vernon, unbeknownst to Broadbent and the IRS, arranged for her domestic partner, Sara Wentz, to purchase the residence for a price of $250,000. The proceeds from the sale went to the IRS, but still did not satisfy Vernon’s tax liability in full. Vernon set up a new company, through which she could continue her work as a consultant, Rockledge Medical Services. Wentz was Rockledge's sole shareholder, and Vernon worked as a volunteer, thus receiving no income for her work. Vernon and Wentz disregarded corporate formalities in dealing with Rockledge’s contracts and finances. At some point, the IRS began investigating Vernon from a criminal standpoint. And that investigation ultimately led to the indictment for tax evasion that was issued in this case. Vernon was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 41 months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release, and ordered to pay $311,157 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. Vernon appealed her convictions and sentences. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Vernon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Archangel Diamond Corporation Liquidating Trust, as successor-in-interest to Archangel Diamond Corporation (collectively, “Archangel”), appealed dismissal of its civil case against defendant OAO Lukoil (“Lukoil”), in which it alleged claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), breach of contract, and commercial tort law. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Lukoil and under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Archangel Diamond Corporation was a Canadian company and bankrupt. The liquidating trust was located in Colorado. In 1993, Archangel entered into an agreement with State Enterprise Arkhangelgeology (“AGE”), a Russian state corporation, regarding a potential license to explore and develop diamond mining operations in the Archangelsk region of Russia. Archangel and AGE agreed that Archangel would provide additional funds and that the license would be transferred to their joint venture company. However, the license was never transferred and remained with AGE. In 1995, AGE was privatized and became Arkhangelskgeoldobycha (“AGD”), and the license was transferred to AGD. Diamonds worth an estimated $5 billion were discovered within the license region. In 1998, Lukoil acquired a controlling stake in AGD, eventually making AGD a wholly owned subsidiary of Lukoil. Pursuant to an agreement, arbitration took place in Stockholm, Sweden, to resolve the license transfer issue. When AGD failed to honor the agreement, Archangel reactivated the Stockholm arbitration, but the arbitrators this time concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute even as to AGD. Archangel then sued AGD and Lukoil in Colorado state court. AGD and Lukoil removed the case to Colorado federal district court. The district court remanded the case, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because all of the claims were state law claims. The state trial court then dismissed the case against both AGD and Lukoil based on lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal as to AGD, reversed as to Lukoil, and remanded (leaving Lukoil as the sole defendant). On remand, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s previous dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, which it had not addressed before, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court granted Lukoil and AGD's motion to hold an evidentiary hearing, and the parties engaged in jurisdictional discovery. In 2008 and early 2009, the case was informally stayed while the parties discussed settlement and conducted discovery. By June 2009, Archangel had fallen into bankruptcy due to the expense of the litigation. On Lukoil’s motion and over the objection of Archangel, the district court referred the matter to the bankruptcy court, concluding that the matter was related to Archangel’s bankruptcy proceedings. Lukoil then moved the bankruptcy court to abstain from hearing the matter, and the bankruptcy court concluded that it should abstain. The bankruptcy court remanded the case to the Colorado state trial court. The state trial court again dismissed the action. While these state-court appeals were still pending, Archangel filed this case before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, maintaining that Lukoil had a wide variety of jurisdictional contacts with Colorado and the United States as a whole. Finding no reversible error in the district court's ruling dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Archangel Diamond v. OAO Lukoil" on Justia Law

The Independence Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, conducts research and educates the public on public policy. During the 2014 Colorado gubernatorial campaign, the Institute intended to air an advertisement on Denver-area television that was critical of the state’s failure to audit its new health care insurance exchange. The Institute was concerned that the ad qualified as an “electioneering communication” under the Colorado Constitution and, therefore, to run it the Institute would have to disclose the identity of financial donors who funded the ad. The Institute resisted the disclosure requirement, arguing that the First Amendment prohibited disclosure of donors to an ad that is purely about a public policy issue and is unrelated to a campaign. The Tenth Circuit court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Colorado Secretary of State. "Colorado’s disclosure requirements, as applied to this advertisement, meet the exacting scrutiny standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. . . . The provision serves the legitimate interest of informing the public about the financing of ads that mention political candidates in the final weeks of a campaign, and its scope is sufficiently tailored to require disclosure only of funds earmarked for the financing of such ads." View "Independence Institute v. Williams" on Justia Law

Amidst the 2007–2008 financial crisis, the Office of the State Bank Commissioner of Kansas declared The Columbian Bank and Trust Company insolvent, seized the bank’s assets, and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. The FDIC then sold many of the bank’s assets. Columbian Financial Corporation, the bank’s sole shareholder, sued the state bank commission and four commission officials (Judi Stork, Deryl Schuster, Edwin Splichal, and J. Thomas Thull). Columbian Financial alleged denial of due process from the seizure of bank assets, and sought equitable remedies and damages. The district court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed, with the parties raising two issues: (1) whether the district court properly abstained under "Younger v. Harris," (401 U.S. 37 (1971)); and (2) whether Stork and Thull were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims for damages. The Tenth Circuit found that a state court proceeding was ongoing when the federal complaint was filed, and the state proceeding terminated while this appeal was pending. In light of this change of circumstances, the Court vacated the dismissal without prejudice on the equitable claims and remand for further proceedings. The Court also found that Stork and Thull enjoyed qualified immunity on the claim for damages because the alleged conduct would not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. View "Columbian Financial Corp. v. Stork" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Leslie Taylor asked the Colorado Medicaid program to combine the benefits she received through two assistance programs to help her get to medical appointments. If approved, this combination would allow the agency to pay attendants for time driving Taylor to and from her appointments. The agency refused, and the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the refusal constituted discrimination against Taylor based on her disability. The Tenth Circuit concluded that this refusal did not constitute discriminate against Taylor based on her disability. View "Taylor v. Colorado Dept of Health Care" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Fager appealed the denial of his Motion to Suppress a firearm police officers discovered on his person during a roadside frisk. A Topeka Police Department deputy stopped defendant's car for a turn signal violation near an apartment complex in a high-crime area of Topeka. The deputy noticed defendant’s eyes were watery, his speech was soft, and an unopened beer can sat in the center console of the vehicle (signs that indicated defendant may have been impaired). Furthermore, defendant's passenger continually leaned forward in a way that made the deputy think the passenger was trying to obstruct his view of defendant, an action which the deputy found suspicious. Although the deputy discovered Defendant had at least one prior DUI, he determined defendant was not then impaired. The deputy asked for and received permission to search defendant's car. Prior to the search, the deputy conducted a pat-down search of defendant, when he discovered defendant was carrying a firearm. Defendant would ultimately be indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, and he moved to suppress evidence of the firearm arguing the pat-down search was unlawful. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether the officers’ concerns for their own safety gave them the requisite reasonable suspicion to frisk Defendant. The Court held that these concerns sufficiently justified the frisk under the totality of the circumstances and affirmed. View "United States v. Fager" on Justia Law

In May 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Claud Koerber on one count each of mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. In November 2009 and September 2011, the grand jury returned two additional superseding indictments, ultimately charging Koerber with 20 counts related to his alleged Ponzi scheme. Koerber’s case remained pending for more than five years without ever reaching trial. In August 2014, on Koerber’s motion, the district court found a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (STA), exercised its discretion and dismissed Koerber’s case with prejudice. The government appealed, arguing to the Tenth Circuit that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. Although the Tenth Circuit disagreed with most of the government’s arguments, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in two respects: (1) by including improper factors in its consideration of the seriousness-of-the-offense factor, and (2) by failing to fully consider Koerber’s own actions that may have contributed to the speedy-trial delay. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice, and remanded the case for reconsideration. View "United States v. Koerber" on Justia Law

Octavio Gutierrez-Orozco (Gutierrez), a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally. Gutierrez insisted he entered the United States in March 1996. He remembered that date because his wife, who remained in Mexico, was pregnant with the second of their four children, who was born in September 1996. He claimed to have lived in the United States continuously since then, except for a brief, two-month trip back to Mexico in mid-1999 when his wife was ill, after which border patrol twice hindered his reentry. His wife joined him here sometime in 2000. Gutierrez’s immigration troubles began in February 2008, when a domestic violence incident with his teenage son led to a simple assault conviction. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Gutierrez conceded removability but requested cancellation of removal or, in the alternative, voluntary departure. The IJ conducted a hearing and concluded Gutierrez was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate a ten-year continuous physical presence in the United States from April 1, 1998, to April 1, 2008; good moral character for that time period; and an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ also denied voluntary departure because Gutierrez failed to maintain good moral character during the relevant time frame and, alternatively, as an exercise of discretion. Gutierrez appealed to the BIA for relief from the IJ’s decision. The BIA denied relief, agreeing with the IJ. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Gutierrez-Orozco v. Lynch" on Justia Law

American Fidelity Assurance Company sued the Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) for claims arising from BNYM’s conduct as Trustee of a trust holding mortgage-backed securities owned by American Fidelity. BNYM did not assert a personal jurisdiction defense in its first two motions to dismiss or in its answer. In its third motion to dismiss, BNYM argued it was not subject to general jurisdiction in Oklahoma. The district court denied the motion, concluding BNYM had waived the defense by failing to raise it in prior filings. BNYM challenges that decision in an interlocutory appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "American Fidelity Assurance v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law