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

Plaintiff-Appellant Kathy Riser brought suit in federal district court alleging that Defendant-Appellee QEP Energy Company (QEP) discriminated against her on the basis of gender and age in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court granted summary judgment to QEP on all claims. After review of Riser's arguments on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court could not "say that QEP has 'prove[n] at least one affirmative defense so clearly that no rational jury could find to the contrary.'" The Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to QEP on Riser's EPA claim. The Court also found that Riser established a prima facie case of pay discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA. The Court again reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to QEP on Riser's Title VII and ADEA pay discrimination claims. The district court dismissed Riser's discriminatory discharge claims on the grounds that she had not established a prima facie case, and that even if she had, QEP had supplied a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge that Riser did not show to be pretextual. The Tenth Circuit found that in her opening brief, Riser did not argue that she satisfied her prima facie case, but simply asserted a prima facie case existed and proceeded to argue that QEP's reasons for discharging her were pretextual. "Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived;" the district court was affirmed with regard to summary judgment on the discriminatory discharge claims under Title VII and the ADEA. View "Riser v. QEP Energy" on Justia Law

For this appeal, the issue presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether "Alleyne v. United States," (133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)) allowed a district court to enhance a criminal defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range for a 21 U.S.C. 841 conviction based on a judicial drug quantity finding greater than what the jury found at trial. After review, the Court held that, so long as the trial court does not use its own drug quantity finding to alter the defendant's statutory sentencing range, such an enhancement is entirely consistent with "Alleyne." Specific to this case, nothing indicated the trial court altered Defendant Timothy Cassius's statutory sentencing range in any way, so the court did not contravene Alleyne. View "United States v. Cassius" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Reginald Jerome Wray pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether Wray's prior conviction for "Sexual Assault - 10 Years Age Difference" under Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-3-402(1)(e) constituted a "crime of violence" as that phrase is used in U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4B1.2. After review, the Court held that the Colorado crime did not qualify as a "crime of violence." The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Wray" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to remove petitioner Gustavo Mena-Flores from the United States on the ground that he was in the country illegally. Petitioner conceded removability, but applied to adjust his status to permanent residency based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The immigration judge eventually denied the request, stating that petitioner was ineligible for permanent residency because of a “reasonable belief” that he had participated in drug trafficking. On appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding that the immigration judge had sufficient evidence to find a reason to believe that petitioner had participated in drug trafficking. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit for review the Board’s denial of his request for adjustment in status. While the petition was pending, the Board denied petitioner's subsequent motions to reopen the case and reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. Petitioner then filed petitions seeking review of these denials. After review, the Tenth Circuit denied petitioner's petitions, finding no reversible error in the Board's decisions. View "Mena-Flores v. Holder" on Justia Law

In August 2007, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Larry Barnes, charging him with crimes relating to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine. After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Barnes on both counts, and he was sentenced to sixty-six months’ incarceration on each count, to run concurrently, as well as a lengthy period of supervised release. While Barnes’s direct appeal was pending, the government acquired evidence indicating that material testimony offered at trial by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) special agent, an officer of the Tulsa Police Department, and a confidential informant had been fabricated. The government responded to the newly acquired evidence by asking the court to vacate Barnes’s conviction, to dismiss the indictment against him, and to release him from incarceration. In 2009, the district court entered an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to immediately release Mr. Barnes. Following his release, Barnes and his wife, Linda filed administrative tort claims with the BATF. About a year later, in 2011, the Barneses filed a civil lawsuit against the BATF in Oklahoma state court asserting various claims sounding in tort. The Barneses appealed the dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), based on its finding that the Barneses’ claims were time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). The Barneses argued on appeal that the district court misinterpreted the statute of limitations and further erred by failing to afford the Barneses the benefit of the doctrines of relation back, equitable tolling, and equitable estoppel. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Barnes v. United States" on Justia Law

Bryan Berres appealed following his conditional guilty plea to three counts of possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). He raised several challenges to the validity of those counts: (1) his conviction for possessing an unregistered flash bang device violated his due process rights because it was impossible for him, as a transferee of the device, to register it; (2) two section 5861(d) counts that were based on unassembled destructive devices; (3) these charges were multiplicitous because he possessed only a single combination of parts; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a law enforcement officer while in a hospital. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: controlling case law distinguished between firearms that may not be registered at all because their possession is banned, and those firearms that may be registered by a maker or a transferor, even if not by a transferee. Because the flash bang at issue falls into the latter category, Berres’ argument fails. Furthermore, the Court was unpersuaded by his argument that the implementing regulations for section 5861(d) required registration only for completed devices. Because Berres was properly charged with possessing two combinations designed or intended to create two destructive devices, the Court concluded the charges were not multiplicitous. The Court also agreed with the district court that suppression was inappropriate because Berres was not in custody at the time he made the statements. The Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Berres" on Justia Law

At his jury trial for being a felon in possession of ammunition defendant-appellant Gregory Lozado asked the district court to admit a hearsay statement from his brother-in-law, Novelle Farris, claiming ownership of the ammunition. The court excluded the statement because it did not meet the hearsay exception requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence (for a statement against interest). The jury convicted Lozado. The court sentenced him to prison for 235 months. Lozado appealed. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lozado" on Justia Law

Responding to a report of a "disoriented person" in a parking lot of a local stock show, officers located defendant-appellant Andre Gilmore. They briefly questioned him, conducted a pat-down search as part of taking him into protective custody. The search revealed a firearm in defendant's waistband. Defendant was then charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing the search of his person was illegal. After a suppression hearing, the district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Rayvell Vann was caught and convicted of carrying illegal drugs on an Amtrak train in New Mexico. He argued he did not receive a fair trial because: (1) the district court erred in denying his challenge to the government’s discriminatory strike of a potential juror because of the juror’s race; (2) the court erred in allowing expert testimony about the habits of drug traffickers; and (3) closing arguments misstated and embellished the evidence. Vann also argued the district court erred in permitting him to waive his right to counsel during sentencing and proceed pro se. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible errors, and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Vann" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a putative securities fraud class action brought by lead plaintiff Nitesh Banker on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock in Gold Resource Corporation (GRC) during the class period between January 30, 2012, and November 8, 2012. GRC, a Colorado corporation, was a publicly traded mining company engaged in Mexico in the exploration and production of precious metals, including gold and silver. GRC’s aggressive business plan called for a dramatic increase in mining production during its initial years. Plaintiff alleged the "El Aguila" project experienced severe production problems during the class period, and that defendants knew about these problems but concealed them from investors. Plaintiff alleged GRC and four of its officers and directors committed securities fraud in violation of federal securities laws. He also asserted claims against individual defendants as "control persons." The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for scienter required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Plaintiff appealed. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Gold Resource Corp." on Justia Law