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

Defendant Aaron Heineman was convicted after a bench trial on one count of sending an interstate threat. The district court found that in 2010 and 2011, Defendant sent three e-mails espousing white supremacist ideology to a professor at the University of Utah. The first two e-mails did not contain threats, but the third made the professor fear for his safety and the safety of his family. Defendant argued that his conviction violated the First Amendment because the court did not also find that he intended the recipient to feel threatened. Agreeing with Defendant, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Heineman" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Vincent Watson was convicted by a jury of five counts relating to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. He argued on appeal: (1) that his second counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately pursue, and communicate with him about, the possibility of entering into a plea agreement with the government; (2) that the district court violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act by granting the government an ends-of-justice continuance following his co-defendant’s decision to plead guilty and cooperate with the government a week before trial was scheduled to begin; and (3) that the district court improperly admitted testimony regarding Mr. Watson’s previous cultivation and distribution of marijuana. Finding no reversible error as to any of defendant's contentions on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

This appeal related to petitioner Linda Hendron's third application for disability benefits. She filed the first in 1999 and was denied on the merits. She applied again in 2001, and was denied on res judicata grounds. This latest application was filed in 2009, claiming a disability onset date of November 1, 1995. After the Social Security Administration denied the claim on res judicata grounds, requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ heard testimony from petitioner, and considered 19 medical exhibits that had not been submitted in petitioner's previous applications. The ALJ issued a written decision finding that petitioner was not disabled before the expiration of her insured status. The Appeals Council denied review, and petitioner took her appeal to the district court, which concluded the ALJ failed to develop a sufficient record on which to base a disability decision. The Commissioner appealed the district court's decision. Finding ample evidence in the record that the ALJ developed the record on which he denied petitioner's claim, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Hendron v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance challenged a United States Forest Service decision modifying trail use in the two-million-acre Medicine Bow National Forest in southern Wyoming. The Forest Service formally closed several hundred miles of unauthorized motorized trails, but allowed motorcycle use on an approximately five-mile trail in the Middle Fork Inventoried Roadless Area and several connecting trails. The Alliance argued the Forest Service did not properly consider the impacts on wetlands and non-motorized recreation in reaching its decision, and should have found that significant impacts required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the Forest Service's Environmental Assessment adequately supported its finding that the proposed decision would have no significant impacts on wetlands or other users of the Middle Fork IRA. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court and upheld the Forest Service decision. View "Biodiversity Conservation v. United States Forest Service" on Justia Law

An election dispute arose about which individuals were properly elected or appointed to govern the Thlopthlocco people. The Tribal Town filed suit in the tribal court of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and, accordingly, voluntarily submitted to that court's jurisdiction. The Tribal Town subsequently concluded it did not want to maintain its suit in tribal court and dismissed its claims. But the defendant in that suit had, by that time, filed cross-claims. Arguing that the Tribal Town's sovereign immunity waiver did not cover proceedings on the cross-claims, the Tribal Town attempted to escape Muscogee court jurisdiction, but, in various decisions, several judges and justices of the Muscogee courts held that they may exercise jurisdiction over the Tribal Town without its consent. The Tribal Town then filed a federal action in the Northern District of Oklahoma against those Muscogee judicial officers, seeking to enjoin the Muscogee courts' exercise of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction, defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the Tribal Town had failed to join indispensable parties, and the Tribal Town had failed to exhaust its remedies in tribal court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded, however, that the Tribal Town presented a federal question and that the other claims do not require dismissal. But the Court agreed the Tribal Town should have exhausted its remedies in tribal court while its federal court action was abated. View "Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham, et al" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on a district court's authority to grant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Defendant Joseph White was initially charged with 16 drug- and gun-related counts. The government agreed to drop all remaining counts against him in exchange for his pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. White was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment outside of the advisory guideline range: after the sentencing court imposed a mandatory 60-month sentence for all section 924(c) convictions, it exercised its discretion and departed upward by an additional 87 months to account for the drug trafficking conduct that gave rise to White's conviction but which had been dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement. The 87-month figure was computed under old crack cocaine guidelines as if White had in fact been convicted of possessing crack. When the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the crack cocaine guidelines in response to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, White filed a pro se section 3582(c)(2) motion and requested that the district court reduce his 87-month departure to accord with the new crack cocaine guidelines. The district court disagreed with White's argument that the rejected crack guidelines played a role in his original sentence, so that he should have been eligible for a sentence reduction to correct that disparity. Recognizing that the Sentencing Commission enacted a policy statement that expressly precluded courts from reducing a departure portion of an originally imposed sentence, the court denied White's sentence modification motion. White appealed, arguing that the policy statement could not mean what it said: either because it was inconsistent with the plain language section 3582(c)(2), or because it produced an absurd result, or if consistent and rational, because it violated the Constitution's nondelegation and separation of powers principles. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review of the case that White did not show that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. "It is well-settled in this circuit, and elsewhere, that the range upon which a sentence is 'based' is the range produced under the guidelines' sentencing table after a correct determination of the defendant's total offense level and criminal history category but prior to any discretionary departures." The district court did not err in holding that White was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 3582(c)(2). However, his motion should have been dismissed, not on the merits, but on lack of jurisdictional grounds. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

After methamphetamine was recovered from his carry-on luggage on a Greyhound bus, Defendant-Appellant Peter Tubens was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Tubens pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him, asserting that it had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following a hearing and full briefing by both parties, the district court issued a written decision denying the motion. Tubens proceeded to trial, where he was found guilty by jury and subsequently sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment, followed by sixty months' supervised release. Tubens appealed, reasserting his claim that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Tubens" on Justia Law

Defendants–Appellants Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., and J.M. Hollister LLC, d/b/a Hollister Co. (collectively, Abercrombie) appealed several district court orders holding that Hollister clothing stores violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff–Appellee Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC) is a disability advocacy organization in Colorado. In 2009, CCDC notified Abercrombie that Hollister stores at two malls in Colorado violated the ADA. Initial attempts to settle the matter were unsuccessful, and this litigation followed. Abercrombie took it upon itself to correct some barriers plaintiff complained of: it modified Hollister stores by lowering sales counters, rearranging merchandise to ensure an unimpeded path of travel for customers in wheelchairs, adding additional buttons to open the adjacent side doors, and ensuring that the side doors were not blocked or locked. However, one thing remained unchanged: a stepped, porch-like structure served as the center entrance at many Hollister stores which gave the stores the look and feel of a Southern California surf shack. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment: affirming the court's denial of Abercrombie's summary judgment motion and certification of a class. However, the Court reversed the district court's partial grant, and later full grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, and vacated the court's permanent injunction: "each of the district court’s grounds for awarding the Plaintiffs summary judgment [were] unsupportable. It was error to impose liability on the design of Hollister stores based on 'overarching aims' of the ADA. It was also error to impose liability based on the holding that the porch as a 'space' must be accessible. Finally, it was error to hold that the porch must be accessible because it is the entrance used by a 'majority of people.'" View "CO Cross-Disability Coalition, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al" on Justia Law

When negotiations between the Teamsters and Harborlite reached an impasse, management told the union that unless it would agree to the company's final offer it would lock out union members and "immediately begin hiring permanent replacements for locked out employees." Several days later, the company backed off its threat: while it continued the lockout and began hiring new workers, it said that "until further notice" these workers would only be temporary. After three months, the company let its temporary workers go and permitted union members to return to work even though the union never did accept the company's purportedly final offer. The union petitioned the National Labor Relations Board, and the Board agreed with the union that the act of threatening to hire permanent replacement workers violated 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The Board ordered Harborlite to cease making such threats and to post a notice admitting its violation of the law. The union appealed the Board's decision, arguing that Harborlite's lockout was itself unlawful and therefore entitled its union employees to back pay. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Board did not err in refusing to order additional remedial measures against the company, namely, back pay. View "Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from an adversary proceeding initiated by Appellant James Vaughn within his Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Appellant sought a declaration that his taxes assessed for the years 1999 and 2000 were dischargeable. After a trial, the bankruptcy court determined the taxes were not dischargeable because Appellant had filed a fraudulent tax return and sought to evade those taxes. The bankruptcy court's decision was affirmed by the federal district court on appeal. Appellant appealed the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's decision. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's affirming of the bankruptcy court's decision. View "In re: Vaughn, et al" on Justia Law