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

A jury convicted Defendant Deanta Long of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, attempting to manufacture 28 grams or more of cocaine base, possessing cocaine with intent to manufacture cocaine base, and possessing firearms in furtherance of drug-trafficking crimes. On appeal, he challenged the affidavit for the search warrant that led to discovery of the evidence against him. Defendant argued: (1) the affidavit failed to provide probable cause because it did not identify or adequately describe him and the informant’s information was not corroborated by police investigation of the alleged criminal activity; (2) that he was entitled to a hearing under "Franks v. Delaware," (438 U.S. 154 (1978)), to challenge the veracity of the affiant officer; and (3) that the district court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery of information regarding the informant. Defendant also challenges the admission of a compact disc (CD) found in the apartment that was titled “Cokeland” and had his picture on the cover. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Defendant Raul Cruz was convicted by a jury of knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment. Cruz subsequently filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence on the grounds that the search warrant when executed on Cruz’s residence was neither signed nor dated by the issuing judge. The district court denied Cruz relief on that claim. Cruz appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Appellants Sikora Nelson and Paul Dorsey challenged the district court’s order requiring them to post an appeal bond of $1,007,294 in order to pursue their appeals objecting to a class action settlement. Plaintiffs initiated the underlying class action suit against Defendants Western Union Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (collectively, “Western Union”), based on the fact that, at any given time, Western Union maintains between $130 and $180 million in wire transfers sent by Western Union customers that fail for some reason. These funds belong to Western Union’s customers, but Western Union returns this money (minus administrative fees) only when a customer requests a refund. Frequently, however, the customer is unaware that the wire transfer failed and thus does not know to ask Western Union to return his money. And Western Union, although possessing the customer’s contact information, does not notify the customer that his wire transfer failed, but instead holds the unclaimed money and earns interest on it. Eventually, after several years, the law of the state where the customer initiated the wire transfer requires Western Union to notify the customer that his unclaimed funds will soon escheat to the state. At that time, Western Union uses the contact information it had on record to give the customer this required notice. If the customer still fails to claim his money, those funds (minus the administrative fees) escheat to the relevant state, which then holds the funds until the customer claims them. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision to impose the appeal bond, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but reduced the amount of that bond. View "Tennille v. Western Union Co." on Justia Law

Two environmental groups brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, challenging the Utah Department of Transportation's requirement that before granting a parade permit on a Utah state highway, an applicant must obtain liability insurance and sign an indemnification form. The groups alleged this requirement violated their constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the permit requirements are facially invalid. Officials from the Utah Department of Transportation appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "iMatter Utah v. Njord" on Justia Law

In late 2011, the Government filed an information against defendant Ronald Catrell, charging him with various fraud-related crimes. The information was filed with the understanding that Defendant would plead guilty. Defendant, however, fled the jurisdiction after posting bond and was only returned to Kansas after authorities arrested him in South Carolina in July 2012. He then entered a different, binding plea agreement with the Government under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Per this agreement, Defendant would receive 120 months in prison for bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft. Defendant thereafter pled guilty to these four felony counts. Before sentencing, however, and after a lengthy hearing, the district court allowed Defendant to withdraw this guilty plea. The Government then procured an indictment against Defendant with over a dozen new criminal counts. Within weeks, Defendant entered into a new Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with the Government. This time, Defendant plead guilty to the same four crimes as before and receive 132 months in prison. Later, at sentencing, Defendant opined in allocution that the new indictment was “punishment for withdrawing the [earlier guilty] plea” and that “I feel like there’s no choice but to accept” the new plea agreement. Upon questioning, however, he again reiterated that he nevertheless willingly entered the agreement and willingly pled guilty, fully aware that his sentence would be 132 months. Defendant appealed the sentence to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) a portion of the sentence illegally exceeded a statutory maximum; and (2) the Government vindictively insisted on a plea agreement recommending 132 months in prison. Per precedent, the Tenth Circuit concluded after review that the district court gave Defendant an “illegal sentence” for aggravated identity theft. The case was therefore remanded for this plain error to be corrected. View "United States v. Catrell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Alphonso Myers was injured on the job. He received social security benefits due to his inability to work. While claiming benefits, he applied for a job as an armed guard with defendant-appellee Knight Protective Service. On his job application, plaintiff made no mention of his prior injury. Supervisors at Knight noticed that plaintiff appeared to be in pain. Plaintiff then admitted that he had undergone a series of surgeries from the prior workplace injury. Concerned that this pain might interfere with his duties as an armed guard, Knight required plaintiff to submit to a physical exam before resuming his duties as a guard. Plaintiff waited months for the exam - long enough that plaintiff considered the delay as an effective termination from his job. Plaintiff then filed suit, arguing that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his race and disability. The district court granted summary judgment to Knight, and plaintiff appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Myers v. Knight Protective Service" on Justia Law

Seneca Insurance Company paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit in which its insured alleged Seneca had mishandled insurance claims for hail damage to the insured’s property. Seeking to recoup the costs of defending and settling the lawsuit, Seneca brought this action for implied equitable indemnity and negligence against its insurance adjuster, Western Claims, Inc., and Western Claims’ agent Lou Barbaro. The district court allowed Western Claims to discover and admit as evidence at trial correspondence containing advice from Seneca’s lawyers regarding the underlying hail damage claim and litigation. It concluded Seneca put the advice at issue in this lawsuit, thereby waiving any attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The jury ultimately found in Western Claims’ favor. On appeal, Seneca sought a new trial, arguing the district court erred in concluding Seneca put the legal advice at issue. Western Claims cross appealed, arguing that even if the district court erred, Western Claims was nevertheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both of Seneca’s claims. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that because Seneca cited “advice of counsel” to justify settling with its insured in the underlying action, Seneca could not shield that advice from Western Claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision that Seneca waived any attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The Court did not reach Western Claims’ cross appeal. View "Seneca Insurance Co. v. Western Claims" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Cynthia Felkins, formerly an emergency dispatcher for the City of Lakewood, alleged she suffered from a condition called avascular necrosis that qualified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She claimed the City refused to accommodate that disability. She brought suit against the City under the Act, but the district court granted the City summary judgment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: Felkins’s claim failed because she presented no expert medical evidence that any of her major life activities have been substantially limited by avascular necrosis. View "Felkins v. City of Lakewood" on Justia Law

A grand jury issued an indictment charging defendant-appellant Michael Hood with two counts of being a felon in possession: count one, possession of a firearm related to a string of burglaries at an Oklahoma City apartment complex; count two, possession of a component part of ammunition. Hood filed an unsuccessful pretrial motion to suppress the firearm seized from his jacket, and an unsuccessful motion to exclude any testimony or evidence about the burglary investigation leading to his arrest. A jury convicted Hood on both counts. On appeal, Hood primarily argued that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. In addition, he challenged his sentence, arguing that he did not qualify for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "United States v. Hood" on Justia Law

Municipalities City of Spencer and the Town of Forest Park, and Blaze’s Tribute Equine Rescue, acting under a search warrant, seized 44 abused and neglected horses from plaintiff-appellant Ann Campbell’s properties. After a forfeiture hearing, a state district court in Oklahoma issued an order granting Spencer and Forest Park’s joint forfeiture petition. Campbell later sued the municipalities (and Blaze) in federal court under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The district court dismissed Campbell’s complaint, applying both claim and issue preclusion to prevent relitigation of matters common to the state court forfeiture proceeding. Campbell appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly dismissed Campbell’s 1983 claims: because Campbell could have raised her constitutional claims in the forfeiture proceeding but did not do so, and because the Court's allowing her to raise these claims in this appeal would impair the Municipalities’ rights established in that proceeding, the Court held that the district court properly concluded that claim preclusion disallowed Campbell from pursuing her constitutional claims. View "Campbell v. City of Spencer" on Justia Law