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

In 2012, defendant Henry J. Adams III was the lookout for a bank robbery, and recruited a friend to drive her car. After pleading guilty, he received an above-guidelines sentence of 140 months’ imprisonment. On appeal he argued that he should have received an offense-level reduction for being a minor participant, and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held: (1) that defendant was not entitled to a minor-participant reduction because he helped plan the robbery and acted as the lookout; and (2) that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it varied his sentence upward. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Higby Crane Service, LLC (Higby) entered into a Contract with Defendant DCP Midstream, LP that covered crane work to be done at the gas processing plant of DCP's wholly owned subsidiary National Helium, LLC (collectively, "DCP"). A fire negligently started by DCP damaged Higby's crane. The other Plaintiff, National Interstate Insurance Co. had issued Higby a commercial inland marine (CIM) policy covering direct physical loss to certain property. National paid Higby under the policy, and Plaintiffs then sued DCP for the loss. DCP counterclaimed that Higby had breached the contract by failing to obtain a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that would have indemnified DCP for its negligence and therefore Higby should bear the loss from the damage to the crane. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, and DCP appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the required CGL policy would have protected DCP from liability. View "National Interstate Insurance, et al v. National Helium, et al" on Justia Law

A Kansas jury convicted David Fuller of willfully failing to pay more than $50,000 of past-due child support. Both after the government's case-in-chief and at the close of all evidence, Fuller moved for acquittal. The district court reserved ruling on the motions and then, several weeks after the verdict, issued a single order denying both. On appeal, argued the district court erred in denying his first motion: (1) that the court erred by relying on an unconstitutional statutory presumption of his "ability to pay" child support, and (2) that without the presumption the government's evidence was insufficient to prove that he “willfully” failed to pay. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not rely on the presumption and that the government presented sufficient evidence that Fuller had willfully failed to pay his child-support obligation. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Fuller" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Taurus Hoyle appealed the remand proceedings of his prior appeal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed again, this time challenging the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial on remand and consideration of prior state convictions at resentencing. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial. View "United States v. Hoyle" on Justia Law

A Roswell police officer discovered a gun magazine containing ammunition during a protective pat down of defendant Cruz Garcia. A grand jury charged defendant with being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant was sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle driven by Gilbert Romero. Romero was driving under a suspended license for which he was arrested. The vehicle he was driving had a crack in the windshield that obscured the driver's view. Because it was deemed unsafe to drive, the car was towed. Before towing the vehicle, the contents of the car were inventoried. Before the inventory, police asked defendant to exit the vehicle. The officer recognized defendant from a recent encounter and had learned months earlier from a fellow officer that defendant had a criminal history, which included at least one violent felony. Based on that foreknowledge, the officer decided to pat defendant down for weapons, at which time, police discovered the gun magazine. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the ammunition on Fourth Amendment grounds, contending the pat down search was unjustified. The district court denied the motion after concluding the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant–Appellant Mark Davis was convicted by a jury of robbery, use of a firearm during a robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment on the robbery count, 180 months’ imprisonment on the felon-in-possession count, consecutive to the robbery count, and 84 months’ imprisonment on the use-of-a-firearm count, consecutive to the other two counts, for a total of 360 months. He also was sentenced to three years’ supervised release on each count running concurrently. On appeal, he challenged: (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from a car in which he was a passenger; (2) the jury instructions insofar as they allowed the jury to convict him of aiding and abetting without the requisite knowledge or participation; and (3) sufficiency of the evidence concerning a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentences.View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Consumers who purchased an advertised product that promised they could "eat all you want and still lose weight" were dissatisfied with the results and filed a class action against the manufacturers for false advertising. The parties entered into mediation, where they drafted and signed a document outlining the terms of a settlement. They then informed the district court that the mediation had been successful and, in subsequent months, exchanged several drafts further documenting the settlement. During the drafting, the parties could no longer agree on terms and defendants informed the district court they no longer intended to settle. The plaintiff class then filed a motion to enforce the settlement achieved at the mediation, and the district court granted that motion because it concluded the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement. On appeal, the plaintiffs contested the Tenth Circuit's interlocutory jurisdiction. The defendants challenged the merits of the district court’s conclusion that the parties had, in fact, reached a binding settlement. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the case was an impermissible interlocutory appeal because the district court's judgment was not a final one. Finding that it lacked jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Miller, et al v. Basic Research, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Clean Air Act, which requires states to adopt programs that will reduce emission of air pollutants that affect visibility. The State of Utah submitted a revised plan to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency partially rejected the plan, and the State and one of the affected companies (PacifiCorp) filed petitions for review. Though all parties agree that the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction over this case, the Court disagreed and dismissed their petitions. View "Utah v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Rockwood Select Asset Fund XI (6)-1, LLC (a Utah company), received a loan application. In considering the request, Rockwood required the borrower to obtain an opinion letter from its New Hampshire law firm, Devine, Millimet & Branch. Devine provided the letter, which was picked up by someone and forwarded to Rockwood’s owner in Utah. Rockwood concluded that the opinion letter contained falsehoods and sued Devine in Utah federal court. The district court dismissed the suit based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Rockwood appealed. The issue before the Tenth Circuit centered on whether Devine had sufficient contacts with Utah to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Devine’s contacts with Utah were insufficient, and thus affirmed the district court's decision. View "Rockwood Select Asset Fund v. Devine, Millimet & Branch" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Unified School District 500 (USD 500) considered a recommendation to terminate plaintiff-appellant Charles Davis' employment when he was found lying naked on his stomach, sunbathing on the roof of the elementary school where he worked. Plaintiff had worked in the district as a custodian since 1991. Instead, the Board decided upon a suspension without pay for thirty days and demoted him from his position as head custodian. From 2008 to 2012, Davis applied for head custodian positions at seven different schools within USD 500, but was not hired for any of them. In 2008, 2010, and 2011, he filed claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging racial discrimination and later both discrimination and retaliation for filing EEOC claims. In 2012, plaintiff sued USD 500 and Stephen Vaughn, the Director of Human Resources for the district, claiming: (1) retaliation by Vaughn in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981; (2) retaliation by USD 500 in violation of Title VII and section 1981; and (3) delayed payment of overtime compensation by USD 500 in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of USD 500 and Vaughn. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, refusing to make the inference, as plaintiff suggested, that based on the numerous denials he received, there was a common purpose to retaliate against him. View "Davis v. Unified School District 500, et al" on Justia Law