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

Petitioner Enrique Garcia-Mendoza petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of removal. The agency determined that he was ineligible for such relief because he could not establish that he "ha[d] been a person of good moral character" due to his confinement in a penal institution for more than 180 days. In 2010, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. He could not afford bond and remained confined during his pretrial criminal proceedings. He was released after he had been confined for a total of 197 days when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took him into custody and initiated removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded that he was removable for remaining in the United States beyond his authorized period of stay and applied for cancellation of removal. The IJ denied his request because petitioner had been confined for more than 180 days for his 2010 conviction and therefore he could not establish the requisite good moral character. While petitioner’s appeal of that decision was pending with the BIA, he filed a motion with the state trial court seeking to amend his sentence. In the motion, he alleged that his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his sentence before he entered his guilty plea. He asked the court to resentence him to 166 days with no credit for time served. The state court granted the motion and issued a modified mittimus nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date. Petitioner then filed a motion for remand with the BIA based on the new evidence that his sentence was modified to 166 days. The BIA granted the motion and remanded to the IJ. On remand, the IJ again denied cancellation of removal, noting that the nunc pro tunc order modifying the sentence did not change the fact that petitioner had already been confined for more than 180 days as a result of his conviction. The BIA upheld the IJ’s decision. Petitioner then petitioned the Tenth Circuit. Seeing no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied review. View "Garcia-Mendoza v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2009, a Kansas state court convicted Defendant of possessing cocaine with intent to sell and sentenced him to 40 months in jail. Around the same time, Defendant was convicted in a Kansas state court of eluding a police officer. For this latter crime, Defendant’s presumptive Kansas guideline range allowed for a maximum of seven months of jail time. The prosecutor did not seek an upward departure. In the end, the court imposed a six month sentence. In 2012, Defendant pled guilty in the federal District of Kansas to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, and to using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation Office concluded in its Presentence Report (PSR) that Defendant was a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a) because, among other requirements not at issue in this case, he had "at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense." Defendant objected to his career offender classification, arguing that eluding a police officer, while indeed a crime of violence, was not a federal felony in this instance because it was not "punishable by . . . imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit was whether defendant committed enough prior qualifying felonies to be considered a "career offender" under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The district court said yes, relying on "United States v. Hill," (539 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2008)). On appeal, defendant admitted "Hill" mandated this classification, but he argued that "Hill" was abrogated by the Supreme Court in "Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder," (560 U.S. 563 (2010)). The Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Hartshorn appealed a district court's issuance of an injunction against him, arguing the court erred in concluding he promoted an abusive tax shelter in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6700. Defendant organized and was appointed head minister of the Church of Compassionate Service in 2004. At that time, the church had approximately fifty active ministers. To become a minister, an individual is required to take a vow of obedience and a vow of poverty. Upon taking the vow of poverty, ministers transferred title to all of their property to the church. They also assigned to the church all income that was earned as part of their normal employment, either endorsing their employment checks in favor of the church or directing their employers to deposit their earnings directly into various church accounts. According to internal church documents, 90% of the money ministers earned and assigned to the church was "available for local ministry funding." Defendant testified that the church’s "policy [of trying] to make 90 percent available to fund ministries for their compassionate service projects [is] not tied to how much money they make." However, ministers who were deposed in the course of this litigation indicated that it was their understanding they would “get back 90 percent of whatever funds [they] generate[d] for the church.” Ministers deposed for the litigation had not filed tax returns for numerous years though the income they earned at their jobs outside the church was taxable income. The district court agreed with the government that Defendant was promoting abusive tax shelters through his church, and particularly through his representations that individuals who took vows of poverty and obedience and became ministers of his church would not be required to pay taxes on income they earned and assigned to the church. The court accordingly granted summary judgment in favor of the government and issued an injunction prohibiting Defendant from promoting or selling "the use of church-based tax-fraud schemes." On appeal, Defendant argued that the Tenth Circuit should reverse the district court’s summary judgment decision because: (1) Defendant’s statements regarding the tax benefits for vow-of-poverty ministers were correct; and (2) if any of his statements were false or fraudulent, he did not know or have reason to know of this fact. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendant’s representations to the ministers regarding the tax consequences of becoming a minister of the church were false or fraudulent. With respect to reversal of summary judgment because of statements Defendant made to the ministers, the Tenth Circuit found none of his arguments persuasive: "the test for injunctive relief under [26 U.S.C. 7408] is satisfied if the defendant had reason to know his statements were false or fraudulent, regardless of what he actually knew or believed. And we conclude that, whether or not Defendant actually knew his purported interpretation of federal tax law was incorrect, 'a reasonable person in [his] subjective position would have discovered' the falsity of his representations." View "United States v. Hartshorn" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Grace Hwang signed a written one-year contract to teach classes over three academic terms at Kansas State University. But before the fall term began, plaintiff received news that she had cancer and needed treatment. She sought and the University gave her a six-month (paid) leave of absence. As that period drew to a close and the spring term approached plaintiff's doctor advised her to seek more time off. She asked the University to extend her leave through the end of spring semester, promising to return in time for the summer term. But according to plaintiff's complaint, the University refused, explaining that it had an inflexible policy allowing no more than six months' sick leave. The University did arrange for long-term disability benefits, but plaintiff alleged it effectively terminated her employment. In response, she filed suit contending that by denying her more than six months' sick leave the University violated the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her complaint. Subsequently, plaintiff appealed to the Tenth Circuit. "When it comes to satisfying her elemental obligations, Ms. Hwang's complaint fails early on. . . . there’s also no question she wasn’t able to perform the essential functions of her job even with a reasonable accommodation. . . .It perhaps goes without saying that an employee who isn't capable of working for so long isn't an employee capable of performing a job's essential functions - and that requiring an employer to keep a job open for so long doesn't qualify as a reasonable accommodation. After all, reasonable accommodations . . . are all about enabling employees to work, not to not work." The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Hwang v. Kansas State University" on Justia Law

Dr. Collie Trant was the former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Oklahoma at a time the office was recovering from a series of public scandals. Trant lost the confidence of the Oklahoma Board of Medicolegal Investigations, and was terminated. Trant filed suit in Oklahoma state court alleging a number of claims under federal and state law in connection with his tenure and termination. Oklahoma subsequently consented to removal of the case to federal court. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Trant’s First Amendment retaliation claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed for lack of standing Trant’s claim seeking a declaratory judgment the Board violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act. The court also dismissed Trant’s breach of implied contract claim for failure to state a claim under Oklahoma law. Finding no reversible error with respect to the district court's decision on Trant's First Amendment and breach of implied contract claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. With regard to Trant's declaratory judgment claim, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trant v. Medicolegal Investigations, et al" on Justia Law

In late 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comprehensively reforming and modernizing its universal service and intercarrier compensation systems. Petitioners, all parties to the rulemaking proceeding, filed petitions for judicial review of the FCC’s Order. In multiple briefs, petitioners asserted a host of challenges to the portions of the Order revising how universal service funds are to be allocated to and employed by recipients. After carefully considering those claims, the Tenth Circuit found them either unpersuasive or barred from judicial review. Consequently, the Court denied the petitions to the extent they were based upon those claims. View "IN RE: FCC 11-161" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Captain Paul Fields of the Tulsa, Oklahoma police department filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants the City of Tulsa; Charles Jordan, the Chief of Police; and Alvin Daryl Webster, the Deputy Chief of Police. The suit challenged his punishment for objecting to an order requiring him either to attend or to order subordinates to attend a law-enforcement appreciation event hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa. He claimed that the punishment violated the First Amendment prohibitions against impairing the rights of free exercise of religion and of association as well as the prohibition against the establishment of religion. He also raised an equal-protection claim. He later sought to amend his complaint to add a claim that his freedom of speech was violated when he suffered retaliation for bringing this lawsuit and a claim that he was denied rights protected by the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA). The district court denied leave to amend and ultimately granted summary judgment for Defendants. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: (1) the Attendance Order did not burden Fields’s religious rights because it did not require him to violate his personal religious beliefs by attending the event; (2) the order did not violate the Establishment Clause because "no informed, reasonable observer would have perceived the order or the event as a government endorsement of Islam;" (3) the Order did not burden Fields’s right of association because it did not interfere with his right to decide what organizations to join as a member; (4) Fields’s equal-protection claim duplicated his free-exercise claim and failed for the same reason; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’s motion to amend the complaint to add ORFA and free-speech retaliation claims because the amendment would have been futile. View "Fields v. City of Tulsa, et al" on Justia Law

Terry Jo Rollings pled guilty to one count of knowingly possessing stolen goods. As part of the plea agreement, Rollings waived the right to appeal his guilty plea, the restitution imposed, and any other aspect of his conviction. Despite waiving his right to appeal in his plea agreement, Rollings petitioned the Tenth Circuit to challenge his plea, arguing it was not knowing and voluntary because he was not advised of the court’s authority to order restitution and because he was not aware of all of the elements of the crime charged. Since his guilty plea allegedly was not knowing and voluntary, he claimed that his waiver of his right to appeal the plea was likewise invalid. The government moved to enforce Rollings’s appeal waiver. The Tenth Circuit found the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, affirmed the district court's decision and granted the government's motion to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. View "United States v. Rollings" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Maria Gallardo and her child, who was born with cerebral palsy, filed suit against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs claimed that the performance of Ms. Gallardo's attending obstetrician, Dr. Jeffery McCutcheon, fell below the applicable standard of care during the labor and delivery of the child. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the United States. On appeal, plaintiffs asserted seven separate challenges to the district court's order finding in favor of the government. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that all seven challenges lacked merit. And, for that reason, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the United States. View "Gallardo v. United States of America" on Justia Law

The contracts at issue in this case related to Z3 Technology's design and manufacturing of circuit board modules for use in Digital Ally, Inc.'s products. The first contract, called for Z3 to design, manufacture, and deliver to Digital 1,000 modules incorporating Texas Instruments' DM355 computer chip. The second contract involved a larger quantity of modules that would use Texas Instruments' next-generation DM365 chip. Both contracts were signed by Robert Haler, who was then Digital's Executive Vice President of Engineering and Production. The contracts were described as "Production License Agreement[s]," and they expressly provided that the modules would be licensed, not sold, to Digital. The contracts both stated they would "be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nebraska, without reference to conflict of laws principles." Upon review of the contracts at issue in this case, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for the district court to award prejudgment interest to Z3 on a damages award and unpaid design fees. All other portions of the district court's judgment were affirmed. View "Digital Ally, et al v. Z3 Technology, et al" on Justia Law