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

Kenneth Wheeler was convicted of two counts of transmitting a threat in foreign commerce under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) based on Facebook posts that called upon his "religious followers" to carry out violent acts. Wheeler was sentenced to forty months’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, and three years' supervised release on each count, also to run concurrently. On appeal, Wheeler argued that his convictions should have been reversed because: (1) the jury was not properly instructed that it had to find Wheeler had a subjective intent to threaten in order to convict; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Wheeler transmitted a "true threat." Not persuaded that the evidence was insufficient to convict, but finding that the jury was not properly instructed, the Tenth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Charles Warner, Richard Glossip, John Grant, and Benjamin Cole, were all Oklahoma state prisoners convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. These plaintiffs were among a group of twenty-one Oklahoma death-row inmates who filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their executions until the district court could rule on the merits of their claims. The district court denied their request. Plaintiffs then appealed. Agreeing with the district court that plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Warner v. Gross" on Justia Law

Petitioner Ramona Mitchell appealed a Tax Court decision to deny a charitable contribution deduction for a donation of a conservation easement on real property that was, at the time of the donation, subject to an unsubordinated mortgage. Specifically, she challenged the Tax Court’s conclusion that the donation failed to comply with the Internal Revenue Code (and its implementing regulations). Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court. View "Mitchell v. Comm'r of Internal Rev." on Justia Law

In 2007, Carlos Bassatt was accused by a school district employee of masturbating in the parking lot of a Denver high school during school hours. Bassatt was terminated from his student teaching placement with School District No. 1 of the City and County of Denver for misconduct. Although the Denver District Attorney’s Office chose not to prosecute Bassatt, West’s principal terminated him from his student teaching placement with the District out of concern for student safety. Bassatt filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Bassatt later filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory discharge in the federal district court. Bassatt died while district court proceedings were still pending, and his estate was substituted as the plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment for the District, finding that the Estate failed to show that the principal’s reason for firing Bassatt was pretextual. The Estate appealed the district court’s finding (required in a Title VII retaliation claim), arguing that there were sufficient facts on the issue of pretext to create a triable issue of material fact, thus precluding summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Estate of Bassatt v. School District No. 1" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Lester Nichols was a convicted sex offender who left the United States without updating his status on the federal sex offender registry. He was brought back to the United States and charged with failing to register in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On appeal, he challenged his conviction arguing: (1) SORNA’s updating requirement did not apply in situations like his where the sex offender moves from a SORNA jurisdiction to a non-SORNA jurisdiction; and (2) SORNA’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General to determine SORNA’s retroactive application was unconstitutional. Rejecting both arguments, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Steven Denson had been convicted for armed robbery. After spending time in prison, he was on probation, when he stopped reporting to his probation officer, as required by the sentence he received. Authorities discovered his name on a residential Wichita utility account. A radar sweep of the house, plus other evidence suggested defendant was inside. Upon execution of their search warrant, officers found defendant inside with a stash of guns. Defendant would later plead guilty to federal firearms charges, but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) officers entered his home without reason the believe he was inside at the time; (2) officers lacked a lawful reason to search the home after his arrest; and (3) officers had no right to seize guns even after they found them. After review, the Tenth Circuit found that even without the radar, officers could have reasonably concluded defendant might have been inside the home based on the utility bill and the fact that defendant was at the time hiding from law enforcement, and the electric meter was "whirring away." "Did the officers' questionable search outside the home paradoxically negate their otherwise solid case for a search inside the home? ... in a criminal proceeding like ours the government is free to rely on facts gleaned independently from any Fourth Amendment violation. And in our case Mr. Denson acknowledges that all of the facts we’ve outlined above were discovered independently of the potentially problematic radar search - a fact that requires us to defer those questions to another day." Finding no merit to defendant's last contention regarding seizure of his guns, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. View "United States v. Denson" on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals before the Tenth Circuit in this case shared a common issue, a matter of first impression: whether an untimely 1040 Form, filed after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has assessed the tax liability, is a tax return for purposes of the exceptions to discharge in section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code. Edson and Liana Mallo did not file timely federal income tax returns for 2000 and 2001. As a result, the IRS issued statutory notices of deficiency. The Mallos did not challenge those determinations. The IRS began collection efforts in 2006. In 2007, the Mallos filed a joint Form 1040 for tax year 2000 and another joint Form 1040 for tax year 2001. Based on this information, the IRS assessed additional joint tax liability against them. In 2010, the Mallos filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for adjustment of debts with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. Their case was converted to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 in early 2011. After the bankruptcy court issued a general order discharging the Mallos’ debts, the Mallos filed an adversary proceeding against the IRS, seeking a determination that their income tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001 had been discharged. The IRS answered, denying the debts had been discharged. The parties agreed there were no issues of material fact in dispute and filed cross motions for summary judgment on the legal question whether the Mallos’ tax debt was excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. In another case, Peter Martin did not file timely returns for tax years 2000 and 2001. The IRS issued statutory notices of deficiency, which Mr. Martin did not challenge. In 2004, the IRS began collection efforts. In May 2005, Mr. Martin filed a Form 1040 for 2000 and a Form 1040 for 2001. Based on his submissions, the IRS partially abated Mr. Martin’s 2000 and 2001 tax liabilities. The legal question was the same in Mr. Martin’s bankruptcy, but he obtained a more favorable result. Mr. Martin filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and received a general discharge order. Like the Mallos, Mr. Martin then filed an adversary proceeding against the IRS, seeking a determination that his 2000 and 2001 tax debts had been discharged. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, making substantially the same arguments as advanced in the Mallos’ case. Contrary to the decision in the Mallos’ bankruptcy proceeding, the judge in Mr. Martin’s case determined the tardy Form 1040s were tax returns and therefore Mr. Martin’s tax debt was not excepted from the order of discharge. The IRS appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the untimely forms were not tax returns under the statute, and the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions excluding the debtors’ tax liability from the general discharge orders of the bankruptcy courts. View "Mallo v. IRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathryn Kipling sued State Farm Automobile Insurance Company in Colorado federal district court for breach of contract because it did not pay her benefits under four insurance policies issued in Minnesota. The court determined that she would be entitled to benefits under Colorado law but not under Minnesota law. It then applied tort conflict-of-laws principles to rule that Colorado law governed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit held that the court erred by not applying contract conflict-of-laws principles. The district court was reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration. View "Kipling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile" on Justia Law

In 1973, appellant David Tokoph was convicted for his participation in a series of fraudulent loan transactions. He was sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (repealed in 1984). In 2012, Tokoph filed a motion to seal and expunge records of that conviction. The district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed in the motion and dismissed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Tokoph v. United States" on Justia Law

Stan Lee Media claimed to own intellectual-property rights in a number of popular Marvel Enterprises comic-book characters. Its claims derived from a 1998 contractual agreement with Stan Lee, in which he transferred all of his ownership rights in characters he created while working at Marvel to Stan Lee Media in exchange for salary and other benefits. Stan Lee Media brought copyright infringement claims against Marvel Enterprises' corporate owner, The Walt Disney Company. Disney disputed whether Stan Lee Media had any interest whatever in the Marvel characters. The Ninth Circuit addressed the complex question of ownership in "Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Lee," (2014 WL 5462400 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2014)), finding that Stan Lee Media could not even allege any right to ownership of the disputed properties. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the ownership issue was entitled to collateral-estoppel effect in subsequent cases involving claims for relief premised on that issue. Thus, because Stan Lee Media was precluded from alleging ownership of the at-issue intellectual properties, Stan Lee Media’s copyright-infringement claim failed here as a matter of law. View "Stan Lee Media v. Walt Disney Company" on Justia Law