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

Petitioner John Doe was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in Oklahoma and sentenced to life without parole. His direct appeal was unsuccessful and he did not file for a writ of certiorari, an application for state post-conviction relief, or a federal habeas petition. He was separately convicted in federal court for robbery of a federally insured bank, which took place in connection with the Oklahoma murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment for that crime. While serving the federal life sentence in Texas, petitioner was convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. The government introduced evidence of petitioner’s Oklahoma murder conviction during the sentencing phase of his federal capital case, and he was subsequently sentenced to death. Petitioner filed this first habeas petition and an almost identical post-conviction relief application in state court, challenging the constitutionality of a prior Oklahoma state court conviction based on evidence of actual innocence. He also filed a motion to abate this section 2254 action pending state court exhaustion of his claims. The district court dismissed his habeas petition without prejudice, adopting a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and holding that a stay under "Rhines v. Weber," (544 U.S. 269 (2005)), was not available because the petition was not "mixed" as in "Rhines" and, in any event, because petitioner lacked good cause for the stay. Although the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court’s reasoning regarding the potential application of Rhines, it affirmed its denial of a stay. View "Doe v. Jones, et al" on Justia Law

In 2008 Chesapeake Energy Corporation was one of the largest producers of natural gas in the United States, with thousands of wells in several states. By early July of that year the price of natural gas had risen and Chesapeake's stock price had risen about 50% in the prior six months. On July 9, 2008, Chesapeake sold 25 million shares of common stock in a public offering. Soon thereafter, a financial crisis rocked the global economy. The New York Stock Exchange Composite Index fell more than 30% in the three months after the Chesapeake offering. Chesapeake was hit even harder, with sharp drops in the prices of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock. Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 880 Pension Fund represented the class of all persons who purchased securities in the offering, argued that Chesapeake and named individual defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o, because the Registration Statement for the offering was materially false and misleading. According to Plaintiff, Chesapeake should have disclosed: (1) that it had expanded a risky gas-price hedging strategy that made it vulnerable to a fall in natural-gas prices; and (2) that CEO Aubrey McClendon had pledged substantially all his company stock as security for margin loans and lacked the resources to meet margin calls. The district court granted summary judgment for Chesapeake. Plaintiff appealed. But finding that Chesapeake's alleged omissions were not material or misleading, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United Food & Comm. Workers v. Chesapeake Energy, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant April Rampton received a large tax-refund check from the IRS after she submitted false tax forms. She claimed that the refund check was a government pronouncement that her actions were legal. After receiving her refund she helped others submit false tax returns using the same method. Defendant was convicted on nine counts of aiding and abetting the filing of false and fraudulent claims for income-tax refunds. On appeal, she argued that the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment by estoppel deprived her of a fair trial. The Tenth Circuit concluded defendant was not entitled to an entrapment-by-estoppel instruction because it would have been unreasonable to infer the legality of her conduct from the payment of the refund. View "United States v. Rampton" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Tenth Circuit on appeal involved involves a dispute concerning the scope of an arbitration clause between Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. and three of its former employees, plaintiffs Miguel Sanchez, Shane Schneider, and Eddie Howard. Plaintiffs sued Nitro-Lift, claiming it failed to pay overtime wages in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act (OPLA). Nitro-Lift appealed two district court orders denying its motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, or in the alternative to stay the proceeding pending arbitration, arguing plaintiffs' wage disputes fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. The Tenth Circuit agreed with Nitro-Lift's argument with respect to the wage disputes and arbitration, and as such, reversed the district court's denial of Nitro-Lift's motion to compel arbitration. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Sanchez, et al v. Nitro Lift Technologies" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Richard Salzer received medical care at an SSM Healthcare of Oklahoma (SSM) facility for injuries he sustained in an accident. At the time of his treatment, he had a health insurance plan (the "Plan"). Salzer entered into a contract with SSM to receive its services (the "Hospital Services Agreement"), under which he "authorized disclosure of [his] medical information for billing purposes and authorized [his] health insurance company to pay." SSM had an existing contract with Salzer's health insurance company (the "Provider Agreement") which required SSM to submit covered medical charges to Salzer's insurance company and accept discounted payment from the insurer. Although the Provider Agreement prohibited SSM from seeking payment for a covered charge from Salzer, SSM sought the non-discounted amount directly from him. Salzer sued SSM alleging breach of contract and other state law claims based on SSM's attempt to collect payment for medical care from Salzer instead of his health insurance company. SSM removed the case to federal district court. Salzer challenged the district court's denial of his motion to remand based on its determination that his claims were completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Salzer v. SSM Health Care of Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Lenox MacLaren Surgical began to sell some of its bone mills (a device it manufactured for use in spinal surgery) through a Medtronic entity, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA. The arrangement ended badly: Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA initiated a recall of Lenox's bone mills, and another Medtronic entity began to manufacture and sell its own bone mill. The result, according to Lenox, was that four Medtronic entities acquired an unfair competitive advantage; thus, Lenox sued these entities for monopolization and attempted monopolization from 2007 to 2010. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims, and Lenox appealed. Upon review of the claims and the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding market definition, monopoly power, exclusionary conduct, and harm to competition. Thus, the Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Medtronic on the claims involving monopolization and attempted monopolization, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lenox MacLaren Surgical v. Medtronic, et al" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case were David and Barbara Green, their three children, and the businesses they collectively owned and operated: Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Mardel, Inc. As owners and operators of both Hobby Lobby and Mardel, the Greens organized their businesses with express religious principles in mind. As was particularly relevant to this case, one aspect of the Greens’ religious principles was a belief that human life begins when sperm fertilizes an egg. In addition, the Greens believed it was immoral for them to facilitate any act that caused the death of a human embryo. Plaintiffs brought an action to challenge portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) whereby employment-based group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) were required provide certain types of health services for women that implicated contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling (without cost-sharing by plan participants or beneficiaries) - all "abortifacients" that went against plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the contraceptive-coverage requirement of the ACA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction on the basis of their RFRA and Free Exercise claims. The district court denied that motion. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the injunction. After review by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that Hobby Lobby and Mardel were entitled to bring claims under RFRA, established a likelihood of success that their rights under statute were substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and established an irreparable harm. However, the case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings on two remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Hobby Lobby Stores, et al v. Sebelius, et al" on Justia Law

Lawrence Lucero pled guilty to three counts of receipt of child pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography. At sentencing, the district court increased Lucero's offense level by five based on section 2G2.2(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for having engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor. Lucero triggered this increase by admitting to sexually touching two young nieces in the 1960s and 1970s. He was sentenced to 78 months in prison (the lower limit of his Guidelines range) followed by 15 years supervised release. Lucero appealed his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no abuse of the district court's discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Lucero" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Terry Thomas was charged in federal court with selling crack cocaine and maintaining a place to manufacture, distribute, or use a controlled substance. He went to trial 146 days after his arraignment. At the trial, an informant testified that she had bought crack cocaine three times from appellant. The jury found appellant guilty on: (1) three counts of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute; and (2) two counts of using or maintaining a place for the manufacture or distribution of crack cocaine. The court convicted and sentenced appellant to five concurrent prison terms of 130 months. Appellant raised nine issues on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, raising alleged errors of evidence, trial procedure, constitutional violations and miscalculation of sentence. The Tenth Circuit reviewed all of appellant's claims, and affirmed all but his sentence: the Court remanded the case for recalculation of appellant's sentence. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a suspicious death in a New Mexico prison cell, police identified Paul Smalls, the victim's cellmate, and two other men as the perpetrators. Their scheme was to smother the victim, and then claim he died of an asthma attack. At trial, the government pointed to "signature quality" evidence that Smalls had threatened his asthmatic ex-wife in a similar fashion five months before the murder. Smalls and the other men were found guilty of the murder. Smalls appealed his conviction, arguing that he received a fundamentally unfair trial because: (1) the district court erred in several of its evidentiary rulings, including allowing the testimony of his ex-wife about his prior statement; (2) the government committed prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the court abused its discretion in denying certain jury instructions; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. Finding no reversible errors, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Small" on Justia Law