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

Tyrone Clark and his company, Brokers' Choice of America, sued NBC Universal, Inc. and some of its employees after it aired a "Dateline" segment titled "Tricks of the Trade." The aired segment featured snippets of Clark taken from one of his two-day seminars for insurance brokers on BCA’s property in Colorado. The crew surreptitiously filmed the seminar. Using select words from the two-day seminar, the aired program depicted Clark as one who teaches insurance agents how to employ misrepresentations and other questionable tactics in order to dupe senior citizens into purchasing inappropriate annuity products. BCA's complaint alleged several state-law claims: defamation, trespass, fraud, and intrusion. It also alleged three violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure violation and two Fourteenth Amendment violations, invasion of privacy and stigmatization. Dateline moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Applying the Colorado Shield Law, specifically the Colorado's newsperson's privilege, the magistrate judge stayed discovery. The district court later granted the motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. BCA's amended complaint raised only the defamation claim and the 1983 claims, both of which were ultimately dismissed too. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings: the Court affirmed the dismissal of BCA's Fourth Amendment and 1983 privacy and stigmatization claims. The Court reversed the dismissal of the defamation claim. View "Broker's Choice of America, et al v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Chesapeake common stock from 2009 to 2012, and who were damaged from those purchases/acquisitions. The complaint alleged that Defendants materially misled the public through false statements and omissions regarding two different types of financial obligations: (1) Volumetric Production Payment transactions (under which Chesapeake received immediate cash in exchange for the promise to produce and deliver gas over time); and (2) the Founder Well Participation Program (under which Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon was allowed to purchase up to a 2.5% interest in the new gas wells drilled in a given year). With respect to the "VPP program," Plaintiffs alleged Defendants touted the more than $6.3 billion raised through these transactions but failed to disclose that the VPPs would require Chesapeake to incur future production costs totaling approximately $1.4 billion. Plaintiffs contended the failure to disclose these future production costs was a material omission that misled investors into believing there would be no substantial costs associated with Chesapeake’s obligations to produce and deliver gas over time. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Viewing all of the allegations in the complaint collectively, the Tenth Circuit was not persuaded they gave rise to a cogent and compelling inference of scienter. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Weinstein, et al v. McClendon, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants appealed a district court order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Leatherwood brought suit seeking declaratory and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his constitutional rights stemming from the search of his house while he was a probationer in Oklahoma. Defendants were Oklahoma Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Division employees who participated in or authorized the search. The district court denied their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding that "questions of material fact remain[ed] regarding the existence of reasonable suspicion" for the search. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court, finding: (1) as a probationer, plaintiff had a diminished expectation of privacy; (2) the search of his house was reasonable if supported by reasonable suspicion; (3) probation searches could be premised on less reliable information than required in other contexts; (4) an anonymous, uncorroborated tip and a phone call from plaintiff's ex-wife were enough to create reasonable suspicion (defendant Welker had previously talked to plaintiff's ex and was presumably able to assess the wife's credibility and rely on her information); thus (5) the search of plaintiff's home did not violate his Constitutional rights. View "Leatherwood v. Welker, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Lawrence Taylor sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. He was found guilty by an Oklahoma jury of first degree murder and shooting with intent to kill for which he received consecutive life sentences. In his application for post-conviction relief, he argued that the government's witness against him at trial lied about his alleged confession to shooting the two victims. The witness recanted his testimony, but the district court denied relief. Thereafter, petitioner sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit. To the Tenth Circuit, petitioner argued the witness' affidavit recanting his testimony at trial was "newly discovered evidence" The Tenth Circuit concluded petitioner did not make a substantial showing that the district court erred in its finding that the "date on which the factual predicate of the claim… could have been discovered" prior to the date on which the judgment became final. As such, the Court denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.View "Taylor v. Martin" on Justia Law

Vanity Johnson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement in which she "knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] any right to appeal . . . any matter in connection with this prosecution, the defendant's conviction, or the components of the sentence to be imposed herein including the length and conditions of supervised release." Despite her appeal waiver, Johnson filed a notice of appeal and indicated her intent to challenge her sentence. The government moved to enforce Johnson's appeal waiver. On appeal, Johnson argued that her waiver was subject to an exception because the district court relied on an impermissible factor in its sentencing decision. However, Johnson did not challenge that impermissible factor at the district court. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit's review was for plain error only. Finding none, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A series of appeals came before the Tenth Circuit brought by Maria Vianey Medina-Copete and Rafael Goxcon-Chagal following their convictions on drug trafficking charges. The issue these cases presented to the Court were one of first impression. At trial, the district court allowed a purported expert on certain religious iconography to testify that veneration of a figure known as "Santa Muerte" was so connected with drug trafficking as to constitute evidence that the occupants of the vehicle were aware of the presence of drugs in a secret compartment. In addition to qualifying a law enforcement official as an expert on Santa Muerte, the court allowed the witness to wander far afield and render theological opinions about the "legitima[cy]" of Santa Muerte in relation to other venerated figures. Upon review of these cases, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the law enforcement officer was improperly vetted under Fed. R. Evid. 702, "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals," (509 U.S. 579 (1993)), and "Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael," (526 U.S. 137 (1999)), and that the testimony proffered was both impermissible and prejudicial. The Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.View "United States v. Medina-Copete" on Justia Law

Amber Shaw coached Plaintiff Tori Varnell in several sports while she was a student in the Dora Consolidated School District. According to Plaintiff, Shaw sexually abused her for more than a year, ending while she was in the ninth grade, (sometime in late 2006 or early 2007). When Plaintiff was 20, she sued Shaw, Dora Schools, and Dora Schools Superintendent Steve Barron under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. On Defendants' motion, the district court granted summary judgment on the federal claims as untimely, denied a proposed amendment to the complaint as futile, and dismissed the state tort claims without prejudice. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Varnell v. Dora, et al" on Justia Law

Michael Salas was pulled over for erratic driving and consented to a search of his car, which yielded over 20 pounds of methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute. On appeal, he challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the court erred in finding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop his car based on a violation of an Oklahoma fog line statute that requires driving "as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane." He also appealed the district court's sentence based on the court's refusal to decrease his offense level by one point under 3E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) for acceptance of responsibility and the court's refusal to issue a downward departure for minor or minimal participation in criminal activity under 3B1.2. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. View "United States v. Salas" on Justia Law

Anthony and Melissa Stonecipher became targets of an investigation because of their purchases and sales of firearms and explosives. During the investigation, federal officers discovered that Mr. Stonecipher had pled guilty in 2007 to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Missouri. One of the officers, Carlos Valles, concluded Mr. Stonecipher had violated federal law, which made it illegal for anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm. Acting on this knowledge, Valles obtained a search warrant for the Stoneciphers' home, ending with Mr. Stonecipher's arrest. It turned out that Mr. Stonecipher had not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for purposes of federal law. Prosecutors soon learned that the conviction did not count because the sentence had been suspended and, under Missouri law, a suspended sentence in these circumstances did not amount to a conviction. The government dismissed the criminal complaint. The Stoneciphers filed a "Biven"s action against Valles and other law enforcement officers involved in the investigation, alleging violations of their Fourth and First Amendment rights in connection with the search of their home and Mr. Stonecipher's arrest and prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. The Stoneciphers appealed the grant of summary judgment on their claims for unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of their First Amendment rights. For purposes of qualified immunity, Valles had enough information to: (1) conclude he had probable cause to search the Stoneciphers' home; and (2) arrest and file charges based on Mr. Stonecipher's possession of firearms and explosives. Further, there was no evidence that Mr. Stonecipher's arrest and prosecution were in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Stonecipher, et al v. Valles, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Joshua Smith robbed two stores and shot the managers in both. He was convicted on two counts of robbery, and two counts of using a gun "during and in relation to" those "crime[s] of violence." "Normally, [. . .] a district court enjoys considerable discretion when it comes to picking a prison term within the applicable statutory range. But at the government's urging in this case the district court decided there was one set of facts it had to disregard - Mr. Smith’s [section] 924(c) gun convictions and the lengthy sentence it just issued for them." The Tenth Circuit phrased the issue before it on appeal as whether "a sentencing court must studiously ignore one of the most conspicuous facts about a defendant when deciding how long he should spend in prison." The Court was "convinced the law doesn't require so much from sentencing courts. [. . .] Viewed with a cold eye, the relevant statutes permit a sentencing court to consider a defendant's 924(c) conviction and sentence just as they permit a sentencing court to consider most any other salient fact about a defendant. To say this much isn't to suggest a sentencing court must reduce a defendant's related crime of violence sentence in light of his mandatory gun enhancement sentence under 924(c). Only that the court is not required to feign the sort of ignorance the government demands." The Court affirmed defendant's conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law