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

Simona Gallegos appeals her convictions for one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute; two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; and one count of use of a communication facility to facilitate the distribution of methamphetamine. Gallegos argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit: (1) the district court erred in admitting the hearsay statements of her alleged co-conspirators; (2) the government presented insufficient evidence to support her convictions; (3) a fatal variance occurred because the indictment charged a single large conspiracy but the evidence at trial proved only multiple smaller conspiracies; (4) the district court erred in admitting testimony regarding her codefendant’s post-arrest request for an attorney; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors requires reversal. Because sufficient evidence supported Gallegos’ convictions and because her remaining claims did not warrant reversal under its plain-error test, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Howard pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud, and one count of money laundering, arising from his participation in three mortgage-fraud schemes. Defendant's participation included identifying property buyers, arranging for their applications for mortgage loans to overstate assets and incomes, and obtaining inflated property appraisals and kickbacks to himself and some buyers. All buyers defaulted on their mortgage notes. Some notes had been sold by the original lenders to downstream lenders, who may themselves have resold the notes. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado sentenced defendant to 108 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $8,862,191.18 in restitution. He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the district court made two errors in imposing the sentence: (1) it improperly increased his offense level by miscomputing the loss to the mortgage lenders; and (2) it awarded restitution to alleged victims without evidence of their actual losses. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the determination of loss under USSG 2B1.1, which was calculated in accordance with precedent, but the Court largely agreed with Defendant’s restitution argument and therefore reversed the restitution order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

In 1998, a driver hit pedestrian-plaintiff Roberta Folks with the side mirror of his vehicle and injured her. State Farm, the driver’s insurer, informed Folks she could receive basic personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits under the driver’s policy. She received $104,000 in medical expenses and essential services. In 2002, State Farm told her she had exhausted the benefits available to her under the policy. Folks subsequently joined a lawsuit seeking additional PIP benefits in 2004. Over the course of the litigation, Folks unsuccessfully sought to certify a class on three attempts. In response to her last attempt in 2011, the district court determined she failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) and denied class certification. A jury heard Folks’s individual claims and found in her favor in 2012. The district court amended the judgment in 2013 to correct errors in the calculation of damages. On appeal, Folks alleged the district court erred in denying class certification. She also argued the district court miscalculated the treble damages and statutory prejudgment interest to which she is entitled. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Folks v. State Farm Mutual" on Justia Law

Western Insurance Company was insolvent and was being liquidated in Utah state court pursuant to the Utah Insurer Receivership Act. As a part of that liquidation, the Liquidator brought an ancillary proceeding against several of Western's "affiliates" to recover funds Western had transferred to them. The Defendants removed the ancillary proceeding to federal district court pursuant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Liquidator responded by seeking a remand, which the district court granted. Defendants appealed, but concluding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Western Insurance v. A & H Insurance" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma jury found Defendant Richard Fairchild guilty of child-abuse murder in the first degree and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) denied relief on all claims presented on direct appeal and in Defendant’s original application for postconviction review. After the federal district court denied relief on all claims presented in his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, Defendant appealed to the Tenth Circuit court. In that appeal, the Court addressed Defendant's claim that his counsel had been ineffective in failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the sentencing stage of his trial. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded to give Defendant the opportunity to exhaust in state court the “far more specific and powerful” ineffective-assistance claim he had raised in his section 2254 application but had not previously presented to the OCCA. After the OCCA denied Defendant’s second application for state postconviction relief on procedural grounds, the federal district court determined that the OCCA’s procedural bars were valid and that Defendant had not overcome them by demonstrating cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Defendant appealed again to the Tenth Circuit seeking relief on his section 2254 claims or, at least, an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance claim. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Fairchild v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Anthony Washington was driving from Oklahoma City of McAlester with a friend, Maurice Edwards, as passenger. The pair had borrowed a rental car from Edwards' mother. Authorities discovered 7.5 kilograms of marijuana and approximately 30 grams of methamphetamine in the car when it was pulled over. The men were ultimately charged with possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting. A jury found both men guilty, and both appealed. The Tenth Circuit already affirmed Edwards' conviction. At issue in this appeal was Washington's contention that the evidence was insufficient to link him to the drugs. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss Washington's indictment. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Medtronic, Inc. produced "Infuse," a device that stimulates bone growth to repair damaged or diseased vertebrae. When it approved the device for sale, the FDA required the company to include a warning label instructing that Infuse should "be implanted via an anterior" surgical approach. Patricia Caplinger brought a state law tort suit against Medtronic, alleging that Medtronic promoted Infuse for use in a posterior surgical approach, which was considered an off-label" use. Caplinger alleged that Medtronic’s conduct exposed the company to liability under a variety of state tort theories. But the district court held all of these state law claims either insufficiently pleaded or preempted. Agreeing with the district court's conclusion that Caplinger's state law claims were insufficiently pleaded or preempted, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Caplinger v. Medtronic" on Justia Law

The Barnes Banking Company (the "Bank") had been placed into Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") receivership in 2010. Three shareholders in Barnes Bancorporation (the "Holding Company"), parent of the failed bank, brought suit against the Holding Company and its officers and directors. The district court’s dismissal of their suit was on the basis that most of the claims advanced by the plaintiffs were owned solely by the FDIC under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), and the remaining allegations were insufficient to state a claim. The shareholders appealed the district court's decision, but the Tenth Circuit agreed: because almost all of the plaintiffs’ claims asserted injury to the Holding Company that was derivative of harm to the Bank, those claims belonged to the FDIC. Furthermore, the one theory of recovery advanced by plaintiffs that identified claims not owned by the FDIC under FIRREA (which involves the alleged misappropriation of $265,000), was pled in too conclusory a fashion. View "Barnes v. Harris" on Justia Law

For a second time, Dustin Eastom attempted to appeal a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the City of Tulsa and Jeffrey Henderson, a Tulsa police officer. Eastom attempted to appeal the same order in 2014, but the Tenth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit again dismissed Eastom’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order was still not final. View "Eastom v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conveyed to a strip of land to a consortium of local governments a strip of land for the construction of a parkway. The decision was challenged on various environmental grounds by several parties, including appellants WildEarth Guardians, Rocky Mountain Wild, the Town of Superior, and the City of Golden. The district court affirmed the Service’s actions, and Appellants appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Appellants asserted that the Service violated the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law