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

Petitioner Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion for reconsideration of the BIA’s dismissal of his motion to reopen proceedings. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied review because Velazquez failed to voluntarily depart or file an administrative motion within 60 calendar days, the maximum period provided by statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2). View "Monsalvo Velazquez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jeffery Sumka was sentenced to 137 months’ imprisonment for sexual abuse of a minor. At sentencing, the district court applied several enhancements over Sumka’s objection after finding that Sumka had undue influence over his victim, engaged in a pattern of illegal sexual conduct, and committed an offense involving a vulnerable victim. On appeal, Sumka challenged the application of these enhancements. After review, the Tenth Circuit found the court did not err in applying the enhancements and affirmed. View "United States v. Sumka" on Justia Law

Appellants Cole Matney and Paul Watts (together, "Matney") participated in an employer-sponsored retirement plan (the Plan). They brought a putative class action suit against Appellees, Barrick Gold of North America, Inc. (Barrick Gold), Barrick Gold’s Board of Directors (Board), and the Barrick U.S. Subsidiaries Benefits Committee (Committee)—for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor fiduciaries under sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Matney alleged the Committee breached the fiduciary duty of prudence by offering high-cost funds and charging high fees. He claimed Barrick Gold and the Board were responsible for failing to monitor the Committee’s actions. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding the first amended complaint did not plausibly allege any breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Finding no reversible error in this dismissal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Matney, et al. v. Barrick Gold of North America, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Diamond Britt was convicted of first-degree murder in Indian Country, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Britt appealed, arguing, in pertinent part, that the district court erred by refusing his counsel’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of imperfect self-defense. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Britt that the district court erred in this regard. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and conduct a new trial. View "United States v. Britt" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Isaiah Tryon accosted Tia Bloomer, his estranged girlfriend and the mother of his son, in a bus station and stabbed her seven times, resulting in her death. A jury convicted Tryon of first-degree murder. At sentencing, the State of Oklahoma (“State”) presented evidence of Tryon’s lengthy criminal history and impulsively violent behavior, including testimony about him physically abusing Bloomer on other occasions, discharging a firearm at a crowd of fleeing people, and fighting while in custody in 2009 and 2013. In a mitigation effort, Tryon highlighted his difficult upbringing, his parents’ substance abuse, his history of depression, several head injuries, and his low Intelligence Quotient (“IQ”). Tryon also presented expert testimony from John Fabian, a neuropsychologist who testified that Tryon was not intellectually disabled, and conceded that while an IQ score of 68 was low, it did not reflect Tryon’s full intellectual capacity. A jury sentenced Tryon to death. On direct appeal, appellate counsel raised twenty claims of error, none of which involved ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed Tryon’s conviction and sentence. In an application for state post-conviction relief, Tryon argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) not presenting an intellectual disability defense; (2) not obtaining neuroimaging of Tryon’s brain; and (3) not countering the 2009 jail fight evidence. The OCCA rejected these claims and affirmed the sentence. Tryon next sought federal habeas relief, while also filing a successive application for post-conviction relief with the OCCA. As to the successive application for post-conviction relief, the OCCA concluded all of Tryon’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were procedurally barred because he could have raised them in his original application for post-conviction relief. The federal court also denied relief on thel habeas petition. The issues Tryon's petition presented for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals centered on: (1) appellate counsel's decision not to present an intellectual disability defense; (2) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining and presenting neuroimages; (3) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing trial counsel was ineffective for not countering the 2009 jail fight evidence; and (4) cumulative error based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Having considered each of these issues, the Court found no reversible errors and affirmed Tryon's sentence. View "Tryon v. Quick" on Justia Law

Husband Steven McAnulty was married twice: once to Plaintiff Elizabeth McAnulty, and once to Defendant Melanie McAnulty. Husband's first marriage ended in divorce; the second ended with his death. Husband’s only life-insurance policy (the Policy) named Defendant as the beneficiary. But the Missouri divorce decree between Plaintiff and Husband required Husband to procure and maintain a $100,000 life-insurance policy with Plaintiff listed as sole beneficiary until his maintenance obligation to her was lawfully terminated (which never happened). Plaintiff sued Defendant and the issuer of the Policy, Standard Insurance Company (Standard), claiming unjust enrichment and seeking the imposition on her behalf of a constructive trust on $100,000 of the insurance proceeds. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed. By stipulation of the parties, Standard was dismissed with respect to this appeal. The only question to be resolved was whether Plaintiff stated a claim. Resolving that issue required the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to predict whether the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Illustration 26 in Comment g to § 48 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (Am. L. Inst. 2011) (the Restatement (Third)), which would recognize a cause of action in essentially the same circumstances. Because the Tenth Circuit predicted the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Illustration 26, the Court held Plaintiff has stated a claim of unjust enrichment, and accordingly reversed the previous dismissal of her case. View "McAnulty v. McAnulty, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Daniel Cortez-Lazcano was convicted by jury of child sexual abuse. After unsuccessfully appealing his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), Cortez-Lazcano sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal court. He argued, among other things: (1) the prosecution used its peremptory strikes to remove prospective jurors based on their race, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (2) that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to notify him of a favorable plea offer, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Applying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, the district court denied habeas relief but granted Cortez-Lazcano a certificate of appealability (COA) on his Batson and Strickland claims. Because the OCCA’s decision did not involve an unreasonable application of federal law or rest on an unreasonable determination of the facts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "Cortez-Lazcano v. Whitten" on Justia Law

After the Department of the Interior amended regulations in 2016, the American Petroleum Institute (API) challenged several of the regulations that governed the calculation of royalties for oil and natural gas produced on federal lands. The district court rejected these challenges at summary judgment, and API appealed. Because API did not show that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting the challenged provisions of the 2016 regulations, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "American Petroleum, et al. v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al." on Justia Law

In April 2012, Plaintiff-Appellee Brandon Barrick filed a qui tam action against his then-employer, Defendant-Appellant Parker-Migliorini International LLC (PMI). Barrick alleged violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) and amended his complaint to include a claim that PMI unlawfully retaliated against him under the FCA. PMI was a meat exporting company based in Utah. While working for PMI, Barrick noticed two practices he believed were illegal. The first was the “Japan Triangle”: PMI exported beef to Costa Rica to a company which repackaged it, then sent it to Japan (Japan had been concerned about mad cow disease from U.S. beef). The second was the “LSW Channel”: PMI informed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) it was shipping beef to Moldova on a shipping certificate, but sent it to Hong Kong. Then, according to Barrick, PMI smuggled the beef into China (China was not then accepting U.S. beef). Barrick brought his concerns to Steve Johnson, PMI’s CFO, at least three times, telling Johnson that he was not comfortable with the practices. By October, the FBI raided PMI's office. Barrick was terminated from PMI in November 2012, as part of a company-wide reduction in force (RIF). PMI claimed the RIF was needed because in addition to the FBI raid, problems with exports and bank lines of credit put a financial strain on the company. Nine employees were terminated as part of the RIF. PMI claims it did not learn about Barrick’s cooperation with the FBI until October 2014, when the DOJ notified PMI of this qui tam action. A jury found that PMI retaliated against Barrick for his engagement in protected activity under the FCA when it terminated his employment. On appeal, PMI argued the district court improperly denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). In the alternative, PMI argued the Tenth Circuit court should order a new trial based on either the district court’s erroneous admission of evidence or an erroneous jury instruction. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on all issues. View "Barrick v. Parker-Migliorini International" on Justia Law

Ceska zbrojovka Defence SE (“CZ Czech”) was a firearms manufacturer based in the Czech Republic. To do business in the United States, it had several subsidiaries, including CZ USA, CZ Czech’s Kansas-based subsidiary. Vista Outdoor, Inc. was a Minnesota company that designed, manufactured, and marketed outdoor recreation and shooting products. In November 2018, Vista and CZ Czech entered into an expense reimbursement agreement covering CZ Czech’s potential acquisition of a Vista firearm brand. Under the contract, Vista was obligated to reimburse CZ Czech for certain reasonable expenses in connection with its evaluation and negotiation of the proposed transaction. Even though the sale was not consummated, Vista refused CZ Czech’s subsequent reimbursement demands. CZ USA, not CZ Czech, filed a federal diversity action in the District of Kansas against Vista for breach of contract. The "twist" was that there was no contract between CZ USA and Vista, nor was CZ USA a beneficiary of the contract. CZ Czech, soon realizing the mistake, attempted to amend the complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and substitute itself as the party-plaintiff. The district court declined, finding that the original complaint controlled and that CZ USA, as a non-party to the contract, lacked standing to sue, meaning the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. To this, the Tenth Circuit concurred and affirmed: the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the lawsuit. View "Ceska Zbrojovka Defence SE ("CZ") v. Vista Outdoor" on Justia Law