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

Angel Exploration, LLC owned and operated a number of wells in Oklahoma. The company outsourced the day-to-day management and servicing of its wells to Smith Contract Pumping (SCP). SCP’s employees, called “pumpers,” checked on the wells routinely. Any needed repairs beyond SCP’s responsibilities were handled by a second company, Natural Gas Specialists (NGS). Plaintiff-appellant Jesus Martinez had been working as a pumper for SCP for three months when he arrived at one of Angel’s wells and found the engine was not running. The process of restarting a well requires pumpers to be in close proximity to the belts, and in this case, to the unguarded belts. While he was waiting to be sure everything stayed in working order, he dropped a crescent wrench. As he bent down to get it, the sweatshirt he was wearing became caught in the belt and his thumb was severed. The thumb was later partially amputated. In his subsequent suit against Angel for negligence in failing to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (alternatively, that Angel intentionally created a condition certain to cause harm), the district court granted summary judgment on a premises liability claim because, under Oklahoma law, landowners owed no duty as to open and obvious dangers, and the unguarded pump jack was such a danger. The court also concluded that Martinez’s intentional tort claim failed because no evidence in the record supported an inference that Angel acted with the knowledge that Martinez’s injury was substantially certain to occur. While this case was pending on appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized an exception to the open and obvious danger doctrine relied on by the district court. A determination that a condition is open and obvious may no longer be an absolute bar to liability if the landowner should have reasonably foreseen the injury to the plaintiff. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the intentional tort claim, but vacated and remanded on the premises liability claim. " Although we have no doubt the district court’s judgment was correct at the time it was entered, we must remand for further proceedings in light of [recent Oklahoma Supreme Court] opinion." View "Martinez v. Angel Exploration" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant David Michael Faust was convicted of attempted online enticement of a minor. He challenged his conviction on two grounds: (1) that there was insufficient evidence of intent to engage in illegal sexual activity with a minor to support his conviction; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to provide his proposed specific-intent jury instruction. To sustain a conviction the Tenth Circuit found that the government only needed to show that defendant took a “substantial step” towards the inducement, enticement, or persuasion of a minor (not towards the element of illegal sexual activity. "To be sure, Mr. Faust’s travel to the motel with his stated plan of having a sexual encounter with 'Joelle's' twelve-year-old daughter and also his contemporaneous possession of condoms may well have bolstered the government’s proof of his intent to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity." The Court concluded that the government presented ample evidence from which a rational factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to persuade, induce, or entice someone whom he believed to be a 12-year-old child to engage in illegal sexual activity and that he took a substantial step in furtherance of this intent. "Accordingly, Mr. Faust’s sufficiency-of-the evidence challenge fails." With regard to the jury instruction, the Tenth Circuit found that defendant did not argue that any of the challenged instructions, in themselves, misstated the governing law. And the Court concluded that, viewed as a whole, the district court’s instructions adequately instructed the jury. View "United States v. Faust" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Oklahoma legislature created the Oklahoma License Plate Design Task Force to update the design of the standard Oklahoma vehicle license plate. The task force also viewed the redesign as an opportunity to “market Oklahoma as a tourist destination.” In 2008, the task force chose a design that included an image of a Native American man shooting an arrow towards the sky, and featured the words “Native America.” The image was based on a sculpture by a local artist which depicted the story of a young Apache warrior who fired an arrow that was blessed by a medicine man into the heavens; as the tale goes, the arrow carried prayers for rain to the Spirit World. Plaintiff-appellant Keith Cressman, professed "historic Christian beliefs," and objected to the license plate design, because in his view, taught that there were “multiple gods” and that “the arrow is an intermediary for prayer.” Finding the license plate image to be irreconcilable with his beliefs, plaintiff tried various means to avoid displaying it. Concealing a state-issued license plate was a misdemeanor under Oklahoma law. To avoid the image, plaintiff obtained specialty plates for his vehicles, paying a fee above that of a standard license plate (ranging from eighteen to thirty-eight dollars). Plaintiff sought reimbursement of that vanity-plate-fee from the State of Oklahoma, or be allowed to cover the image on the standard plate. When he did not receive a response to these requests, plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil-rights lawsuit, alleging that he was forced to display the Native American image (and thereby communicate its allegedly pantheistic message) in violation of his free-speech, free-exercise, and due-process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought an injunction prohibiting state officials from prosecuting him for covering the image on his license plate or, alternatively, an order requiring the Oklahoma Tax Commission to provide him with a specialty license plate at the same cost as a standard license plate. Defendants filed motions to dismiss based on a lack of standing and a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court found that plaintiff had standing, but nonetheless dismissed the complaint. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit determined that plaintiff had standing and that he had stated a plausible compelled-speech claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage. On remand, and after a bench trial, the district court concluded that a reasonable person would not understand the vehicle license plate image to convey the pantheistic message to which plaintiff objected; it thus held that he was not compelled to speak. The Tenth Circuit affirmed: "Mr. Cressman has repeatedly stated, both before this court and the district court, that he does not object to this message. His lack of objection to the only message that a reasonable observer would discern from the image is fatal to his compelled-speech claim; he has not been compelled to express a view he otherwise would not." View "Cressman v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Leslie Camick was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, making a material false statement to the U.S. Patent Office, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and obstruction of justice, all stemming from his unlawful use of his deceased brother’s name and identity. Following his conviction and sentencing, defendant was ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, he argued the evidence was insufficient to convict him on each count. He also challenged the district court’s restitution determination. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed defendant's convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, material false statement, and aggravated identity theft, as well as portions of the restitution award, finding that the evidence presented at trial was indeed insufficient to support those charges. But the Court affirmed the conviction for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Camick" on Justia Law

The government brought criminal charges against Brandon Richter and Tor Olson for fraudulently obtaining the electronic devices they exported for sale overseas, and for violating federal law governing the exportation of hazardous electronic waste. After a fifteen-day trial, the jury found them guilty of committing fraud and facilitating the illegal exportation of hazardous waste. The jury also convicted Richter on a single count of obstruction of justice. On appeal, Richter and Olson raised a variety of legal and evidentiary challenges to these convictions. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed defendants' convictions for smuggling and fraud, based in part on testimony by the government's rebuttal witness. This witness was not qualified as an expert witness, and was allowed to opine as to the nature of the defendants' business and the devices they were exporting. The Court found that the admission of the witness' testimony did not have a "substantial influence" on the other charges against defendants, and as such, was harmlessly admitted. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Richter" on Justia Law

Defendant Belisario Domingo Martinez-Torres raised challenges to three conditions of his supervised release. In July 2008, Defendant, who was 23 years old at the time, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. Although two conditions were not objected to in district court, the government conceded that they had to be set aside on plain-error review. The Tenth Circuit concluded remand was also necessary on the third challenged condition of release. "The error may not be an obvious one, but it might well have been avoided by additional advocacy and exploration of the issue at the sentencing hearing." The third condition restricted Defendant's access to sexually explicit materials: "the district court may have relied on scientific literature or personal experience, but none was cited for the record. record. Further, there is nothing in the record suggesting that Defendant ever viewed pornography of any kind or that sexually explicit materials contributed to his prior offense in any way." The Court therefore concluded on the trial court record that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the special condition prohibiting Defendant from viewing or possessing sexually explicit materials. The three challenged conditions were vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Martinez-Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant Tracey Moore appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle following a traffic stop. Moore was pulled over for speeding, for which he was issued a warning. However, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper continued to detain Moore in order to conduct a dog sniff. The dog alerted to Moore’s vehicle and a subsequent search revealed a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition in the trunk. Moore moved to suppress all evidence discovered during the stop. After the district court denied Moore’s motion, he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. On appeal, Moore argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him after the purpose of the stop was met. He also argued his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the narcotics-detection dog jumped into his vehicle. “Reasonable suspicion is not, and is not meant to be, an onerous standard.” The Tenth Circuit, after review of the district court judgment, found that Moore’s nervousness, his admission that he had been in trouble before, and the recent addition of his name to the vehicle’s registration, when considered together, were sufficient to indicate criminal activity. Accordingly, the trooper did not violate Moore’s Fourth Amendment rights when he continued to detain Moore after the purpose of the stop was completed. With regard to the dog's search, the Court found that "Jester" properly alerted before he jumped inside Moore’s vehicle. A responding trooper testified that when he was doing his first pass around the exterior of Moore’s vehicle, Jester “gave a positive alert” with “a really good change of behavior” by snapping his head around before he jumped into the window of Moore’s car. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Joseph Martinez was a participant in the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Plan, (governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)). Following some health problems, Martinez retired from plumbing in 2004 at age 56 and took advantage of the Plan’s early retirement pension. After a few years in retirement, he felt well enough to resume working, and his pension was suspended during that time according to rules that prohibit retirement benefits during disqualifying employment. When he retired again in 2009, he asked the National Pension Fund to allow him to convert the pension benefits he previously elected from an early retirement pension to a disability pension (a change that would have entitled him to higher monthly payments). The Fund denied the conversion and the district court upheld the denial. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Plan language was unambiguous and allowed Plan participants to apply for and receive only one type of pension benefit for life absent several clearly delineated exceptions, none of which applied to Martinez. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Fund’s denial of Martinez’s claim for disability benefits. View "Martinez v. Plumbers & Pipefitters" on Justia Law

Dr. Mila Means, a Wichita family practitioner announced she would begin offering abortion services to the public. At that time, no doctors were performing abortions in Wichita. The last doctor to do so, Dr. George Tiller, had been shot to death in 2009 by an anti-abortion activist named Scott Roeder. On about January 15, 2011, Defendant Angel Dillard wrote a letter to Dr. Means and mailed it to her office in an envelope bearing Defendant’s name and return address. Upon receipt, Dr. Means notified Wichita police. Shortly after receiving the letter, Dr. Means’ staff found an Associated Press article on the internet which discussed Defendant’s friendship with Scott Roeder, Dr. Tiller’s murderer. This article reported that Defendant had befriended Roeder while he was in jail for the murder. The article indicated that Defendant admired Roeder for following his convictions and being “the only one able to stop abortions in Wichita.” These cross-appeals arose out of a civil enforcement action brought by the United States under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE) .The government alleged Defendant violated FACE by sending a threatening letter to Dr. Means. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss but subsequently granted her motion for summary judgment, concluding that Defendant’s letter did not contain a true threat because: (1) it did not suggest unconditional, imminent, and likely violence; and (2) it predicted violence by third parties but did not suggest Defendant would herself engage in violence against the doctor. The government appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Defendant then cross-appealed, arguing the district court should have granted her earlier motion to dismiss both because the government lacked standing to bring this action against her and because FACE is unconstitutional both facially and as applied. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded a reasonable jury could have found that Defendant’s letter conveyed a true threat, that she subjectively intended to threaten Dr. Means, and that she wrote to Dr. Means in order to intimidate her from providing reproductive health services. The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant was reversed. The Court found no other reversible error. The case remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Dillard" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant David Craig was convicted of possessing a stolen firearm for which he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. After his release from prison, he violated various conditions of his supervised release. He stipulated to several violations, and the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. On appeal, he contended the district court denied him the right to allocute, as afforded him by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Under the then-current Rule 32.1, the trial court was required to give the defendant the opportunity to make a statement and present any mitigating information. Reading further in the context of defendant's argument on appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered whether Rule 32.1 required a trial court to affirmatively extend to the defendant a personal invitation to make a statement. If yes, then the trial court record in this case would have established that the district court erred. While number of federal courts of appeals have held that Rule 32.1 did contain such a requirement, many reached the conclusion that the failure to let a defendant allocute might constitute "plain" error if "clear or obvious" under "well-settled law." Because neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit interpreted Rule 32.1 to require a personal invitation to allocute, the Tenth Circuit concluded any potential error in not addressing defendant personally was not "plain." Furthermore, the Court concluded that any potential error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding: defense counsel explicitly acknowledged that defendant both understood the district court’s proposed sentence and had no intention to challenge its severity. After careful consideration of defendant's argument on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Craig" on Justia Law