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

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

The case involves the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) second attempt to regulate small, high-powered magnets that pose serious health risks to children when ingested. These magnets, used in various consumer products like jewelry and puzzles, can cause severe internal injuries or death if swallowed. The CPSC's first attempt to regulate these magnets was struck down by the Tenth Circuit in 2016 due to inadequate data supporting the rule. The CPSC then revised its approach and issued a new rule, which is now being challenged by industry groups.The industry groups petitioned for review of the CPSC's new rule, arguing that the CPSC's cost-benefit analysis was flawed and that the rule was promulgated by an unconstitutionally structured agency. They contended that the CPSC's data on magnet ingestions was unreliable, that the CPSC failed to consider the impact of its own enforcement efforts, and that the rule was underinclusive and arbitrary. They also argued that existing voluntary standards were sufficient to address the risks posed by the magnets.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the CPSC's rule was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the CPSC had adequately addressed the shortcomings identified in the previous case and had conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis. The court also held that the CPSC's structure, which includes removal protections for its commissioners, was constitutional, reaffirming its previous decision in Leachco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission.The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review, upholding the CPSC's rule regulating small, high-powered magnets. The court concluded that the rule was necessary to address the significant health risks posed by these magnets and that the CPSC had acted within its authority in promulgating the rule. View "Magnetsafety.org v. Consumer Product Safety Commission" on Justia Law

Christopher Kee was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian country following an altercation with his then-girlfriend, Candace Chinchillas, in April 2020. The couple had a tumultuous relationship marked by excessive drinking and mutual accusations of abuse. Kee claimed that the stabbing incident was an act of self-defense, while Chinchillas described it as a violent attack. Kee was acquitted of three other counts of assault, which had more corroborative evidence, but was convicted on Count 2, which relied heavily on the conflicting testimonies of Kee and Chinchillas.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over Kee's trial. Kee did not object during the trial to the prosecution's use of his post-Miranda silence to impeach his testimony. After being convicted and sentenced, Kee filed a timely appeal, arguing that his due process rights were violated under Doyle v. Ohio, which prohibits the use of a defendant's post-Miranda silence for impeachment purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Kee's appeal. The court agreed with Kee that the prosecution's repeated references to his post-Miranda silence constituted a clear violation of Doyle. The court applied the plain error review standard, which requires showing that the error was plain, affected substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court found that the Doyle violation affected Kee's substantial rights because the case hinged on the credibility of Kee and Chinchillas, and the improper impeachment could have influenced the jury's verdict.The Tenth Circuit vacated Kee's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Kee" on Justia Law

Jimmy Lee Brooks was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of ammunition and witness tampering. The incident involved Brooks becoming irate at a beauty supply store, threatening his girlfriend S.J. with a knife, and subsequently shooting at a vehicle she was in, injuring her. Brooks was arrested after a search led police to his cousin's apartment, where he had expressed intent to kill S.J. and her family.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Brooks to 235 months in prison, applying a cross-reference to the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder, which requires a finding of specific intent to kill. Brooks appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of specific intent to kill.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the district court had found by a preponderance of the evidence that Brooks shot at S.J. with the specific intent to kill her. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the evidence, including surveillance footage and witness testimony, supported the finding that Brooks acted with specific intent to kill. The court emphasized that firing a gun at another person can support an inference of intent to kill and found that the district court did not err in applying the cross-reference for attempted murder. The Tenth Circuit thus affirmed Brooks' sentence. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant William Clayton Brown, while under the influence of methamphetamine, broke into a locked bathroom and fatally stabbed Damion Martin, who was embracing Brown's sister, Lacie Watson. Brown claimed he believed Martin was going to kill Watson. The Government charged Brown with First-Degree Murder in Indian Country. Brown requested jury instructions on defense of another and involuntary manslaughter, but the district court refused, citing insufficient evidence for the defense of another and omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction without explanation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma convicted Brown of first-degree murder. However, the court later granted Brown's Rule 29 motion for acquittal on the first-degree murder charge, finding insufficient evidence of premeditation, and entered a judgment of guilty for second-degree murder, sentencing Brown to life imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court plainly erred by omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction based on the theory of imperfect defense of another. The Tenth Circuit found that Brown presented sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction, as multiple witnesses testified that Brown believed Martin was going to harm Watson. The omission of this instruction affected Brown's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed Brown's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Coti D’Shayne Davis pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing to allow Davis to allocute and to make specific findings concerning a special condition of supervised release. On remand, the district court allowed Davis to allocute, struck the special condition, but again imposed the same sentence.Davis appealed, challenging a two-point addition to his criminal history score based on a misdemeanor conviction for consumption of liquor by a minor. The district court had overruled Davis’s objection, construing it as an argument that the conviction should be considered a juvenile status offense and thus not counted in his criminal history score. The court concluded that the conviction did not fit the definition of a juvenile status offense because Davis was over 18 when it occurred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis’s underage drinking conviction, which he received at 20 years old, is “similar to” a juvenile status offense under the guidelines. The court reasoned that the elements of the offense and the conduct underlying the conviction were similar to a juvenile status offense, and that common sense dictated that the conviction should not be included in Davis’s criminal history score. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate Davis’s sentence and resentence him without the two-point addition. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Ricky Koel sought emergency care at Citizens Medical Center in Colby, Kansas, after sustaining serious injuries to his right eye. He was evaluated by a triage nurse, a physician assistant, and Dr. Daniel Kuhlman, who suspected a possible globe rupture. Dr. Sam Funk, an optometrist, also examined Koel but did not confirm an open globe rupture. A CT scan indicated a possible globe rupture, but Dr. Kuhlman did not share these results with the specialists. Koel was discharged with instructions to see an ophthalmologist the next morning. Despite undergoing emergency surgery the following day, Koel ultimately lost vision in his injured eye.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Koel's EMTALA claim, concluding that Citizens Medical Center did not violate the Act's requirements. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koel's state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Citizens Medical Center provided an appropriate medical screening examination within its capabilities and adhered to its own standard procedures, as required by EMTALA. The court also found that Citizens did not have actual knowledge of Koel's specific emergency medical condition (an occult globe rupture) and therefore was not obligated to stabilize him for that condition before discharge. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Citizens Medical Center. View "Koel v. Citizens Medical Center" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over liability-insurance coverage between the plaintiffs, New Hampshire Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and the defendants, TSG Ski & Golf, LLC, The Peaks Owners Association, Inc., Peaks Hotel, LLC, and H. Curtis Brunjes. The insurance policies in question included exclusions for personal and advertising injury arising from the publication of material known to be false by the insureds. The underlying lawsuit involved claims that the defendants knowingly published false statements in a debt-collection letter, causing financial and reputational harm to the plaintiffs in that case.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies, concluding that the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions in the policies precluded coverage. The court found that the allegations in the underlying complaint fell entirely within the exclusions, and thus, the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants. The court also granted summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith, as these claims were contingent on the existence of coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions applied because the underlying complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly published false statements. The court also found that the evidence at trial established that the defendants knew the statements in the debt-collection letter were false when published, thus precluding indemnity coverage. Consequently, the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify, and the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith were properly dismissed. View "New Hampshire Insurance Company v. TSG Ski & Golf" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff from Doña Ana County, New Mexico, fatally shot Diego Eguino-Alcala during a standoff. The personal representative of Eguino-Alcala’s estate (the “Estate”) filed a lawsuit alleging excessive force and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Deputy Sheriff Arturo Ortega, awarding him qualified immunity and dismissing the federal claims against him and the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County. The Estate appealed.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found that Deputy Ortega’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court emphasized that Eguino-Alcala’s sudden movement, which appeared to be a draw-like motion, caused Deputy Ortega to reasonably perceive an immediate and lethal threat. The court also concluded that Deputy Ortega’s actions did not violate clearly established law, thus granting him qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Deputy Ortega’s use of deadly force was reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that Eguino-Alcala’s failure to comply with commands, his sudden movement, and the information that he might be armed justified the deputy’s actions. The court concluded that the Estate failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the use of force. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit upheld the summary judgment and the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. View "Alcala v. Ortega" on Justia Law