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

The Internal Revenue Service filed a notice of federal tax lien against "Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Wright Gary A Member" with the Pitkin County Recorder. The Recorder, however, listed the lien on its indexing website as against "Gary A. Wright" in his personal capacity. Wright paid the underlying lien. Credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) Experian Information Services, Inc. (“Experian”) and Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”) received information about the lien from their contractor, LexisNexis, and included it in their reports of Wright’s credit history. Wright learned about the lien appearing in his credit reports. He sent letters to the CRAs disputing the lien, asserting: (1) the IRS had withdrawn the lien because the taxes had subsequently been paid; and (2) the notice of the lien inaccurately stated the lien was assessed against him when it should have been assessed only against Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen (“ATA”). In response to these letters, the CRAs checked the information, but did not remove the lien entirely from Wright’s credit report because the IRS treated the lien as "released" rather than withdrawn. Wright sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Colorado Consumer Credit Reporting Act (“CCCRA”), claiming the credit reports were inaccurate, the CRAs acted unreasonably in reporting the lien and responding to his letters, and the foregoing caused him to suffer damages. The district court granted summary judgment to the CRAs, concluding they used reasonable procedures to prepare Wright’s credit report and to reinvestigate in response to Wright’s letters. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Wright v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law

Bulgarian native Vladimir Vladimirov petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order of removal based on marriage fraud. Much of the government’s evidence came from written reports prepared by immigration officers and other written materials contained in the agency’s files. Vladimirov claimed the BIA’s reliance on such materials denied him due process of law and without the disputed evidence the government failed to make its case. After consideration of the process due in immigration cases, particularly as it applied to the consideration of evidence that might be excluded in other contexts, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error in this case and denied the petition for review. View "Vladimirov v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jesus Ibarra-Diaz appealed his possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine conviction, arguing: (1) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting various statements of testimonial hearsay at trial; (2) he was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of inflammatory testimony from the government’s key witness; (3) he was deprived of a unanimous jury verdict by an allegedly duplicitous indictment; and (4) there was insufficient evidence produced at trial to support his conviction. Taking each argument in turn, the Tenth Circuit rejected defendant’s arguments on appeal and affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Ibarra-Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Kelvin Hill boarded an east-bound Amtrak train in Los Angeles, California. The train stopped in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and was boarded by Agent Kevin Small of the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) to conduct drug-interdiction activities. Small proceeded to a common luggage area, noticing a black and white “Coogi” brand suitcase with no name tag. He removed the Coogi suitcase from the common luggage area; carried it to the passenger area; and rolled it down the center aisle of the coach, asking each passenger if the bag belonged to him. All passengers present in the coach, including defendant, denied ownership of the bag. Deeming it abandoned, Small searched the bag, finding a large quantity of cocaine and items of clothing linking the bag to defendant. A grand jury charged defendant with possessing with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress, arguing that Small’s taking the Coogi bag from the common storage area and moving it about the coach amounted to an illegal seizure, rendering defendant’s subsequent abandonment of the bag legally invalid. The district court denied the motion. Defendant’s appeal of the denial of his suppression motion framed a particularly narrow legal question for the Tenth Circuit’s review: did Small’s actions in removing defendant’s bag from the train’s common luggage area and carrying it through the coach as he questioned passengers constitute a seizure of the bag? The Tenth Circuit answered in the affirmative: Small’s actions amounted to a “meaningful interference with [Hill’s] possessory interests in” the Coogi bag. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant Thomas Rodella, the former sheriff of Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, was convicted by a jury of one count of depriving a person of his constitutional right to be free of unreasonable force and seizure, resulting in bodily injury and including the use of a dangerous weapon. The conviction stems from a “road rage” incident in 2014 in which Michael Tafoya, outraged he was being tailgated by a Jeep containing Rodella, “flipped off” the driver, Rodella’s son Thomas Junior. According to Tafoya, both men started walking towards his Mazda in an aggressive fashion while simultaneously telling Tafoya to “come on.” At no point, according to Tafoya, did Rodella flash a badge or otherwise identify himself as a law enforcement officer. Tafoya, unaware of either man’s identity and believing that the two men wanted to fight him, sped off in his vehicle. Rodella and his son got back in their Jeep and, with Rodella Jr. again driving, began to follow Tafoya. In an attempt to elude the Jeep, Tafoya’s vehicle got stuck on a metal pole. The Jeep caught up with Tafoya. Rodella and Tafoya struggled before additional deputies arrived on the scene. Tafoya was arrested and jailed before being bailed out by his grandfather. The criminal charges were ultimately dismissed. Tafoya recounted this experience to the FBI. For violating Tafoya’s Constitutional rights, Rodella was sentenced to a total term of 121 months. On appeal, Rodella challenged his convictions on several grounds. But finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Rodella" on Justia Law

Mark Lazzo served as legal counsel for Schupbach Investments, L.L.C. in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. After confirming a liquidation plan for the debtor, the bankruptcy court entered a final fee order approving certain disputed fee applications Lazzo filed. Creditor Rose Hill Bank and Carl B. Davis, the trustee of the Schupbach Investments Liquidation Trust, appealed the final fee order to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The BAP reversed those portions of the bankruptcy court’s order that: (1) confirmed post facto approval of Lazzo’s employment, and allowed fees incurred prior to approval of his employment; and (2) allowed postconfirmation fees. The Debtor, Lazzo, and his law firm, Mark J. Lazzo, P.A. appealed the BAP’s decision. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Davis v. Schupbach Investments" on Justia Law

Celeste Grynberg, individually and as trustee on behalf of the Rachel Susan Trust, Stephen Mark Trust, and Miriam Zela Trust, and Jack J. Grynberg, petitioned the federal district court to vacate an arbitration award that had been entered against them and in favor of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (“KMEP”) and Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P. (“KMCO2”). The Grynbergs invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction. When they filed the action, the Grynbergs were citizens of Colorado, KMEP was a Delaware master limited partnership, and KMCO2 was a Texas limited partnership with one partner, KMEP. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. It concluded that under "Carden v. Arkoma Associates," (494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990)), KMEP’s citizenship was the citizenship of all its unitholders, and because KMEP had at least one Colorado unitholder, its citizenship was not completely diverse from the Grynbergs’. The Grynbergs appealed, arguing the district court improperly applied "Carden." Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit in this matter was whether appellant Jonathan Madrid’s prior conviction for statutory rape in Texas qualified as a “crime of violence” under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In light of “Johnson v. United States,” (135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Tenth Circuit held that it did not. Accordingly, the Court vacated Madrid’s sentences as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Madrid" on Justia Law

Lee Ann Helfrich received benefits through her federal-employee health-insurance plan, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, for the treatment of injuries she sustained in a car accident. After Helfrich reached a settlement with the other driver’s insurance company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City (BCBSKC) sought reimbursement for the benefits paid, as provided in the terms of the Plan. Helfrich appealed the district court’s judgment requiring her to reimburse BCBSA and BCBSKC (together Blue Cross) because the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) preempted a Kansas insurance regulation prohibiting subrogation and reimbursement clauses in insurance contracts. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Helfrich v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Assoc" on Justia Law

In this case, TransAm Trucking, Inc. petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of an email it received from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) counsel expressing the agency’s refusal to issue TransAm a third amended compliance review report pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. After granting review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that email was not a "final order" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2342(3)(A), and dismissed TransAm’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Transam Trucking v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety" on Justia Law