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

Codefendants Michael Griggs and Charles Sharp appealed their convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Griggs also challenged a $500,000 fine that was imposed by the district court as part of his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Stanley Hill appealed conviction on several charges related to the robbery of a bank. During trial, Charles Jones, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), testified as an expert. And when the prosecutor asked about Stanley's repeated invocations of God in support of his truthfulness, Jones stated, "My training has shown me, and more[ ]so my experience in all these interviews, when people start bringing faith into validating [] their statements, that they're deceptive. Those are deceptive statements." Stanley did not contemporaneously object to the admission of this evidence. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit concluded the court plainly erred in admitting this testimony and, in the Court's opinion, in light of the relative weakness of the government's overall case, that it affected Stanley's substantial rights. The Court concluded that this appeal was one of the exceptional cases in which it exercised its discretion to notice the plain error because failing to do so would seriously undermine the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service issued four summonses to banks in the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma for records involving nursing homes owned by Sam Jewell. Under federal law, the IRS had to notify Jewell at least 23 days before the examination date. Because the IRS waited too long to mail the notices, Jewell received the notices less than 23 days before the records were to be examined. Alleging inadequate notice, Jewell filed petitions to quash the summonses. The two courts split on how to interpret the notice requirement: the Western District of Oklahoma granted the government's summary judgment motion and denied Jewell's petition to quash, noting that he received the summonses in time to file his petition; the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted Jewell's petition to quash and denied the government's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the IRS failed to comply with the notice requirement. Jewell appealed the Western District's ruling, and the government appeals the Eastern District's. The Tenth Circuit held that the IRS could not obtain an order enforcing the summonses, affirming the ruling of the Eastern District of Oklahoma and reversing the ruling of the Western District of Oklahoma (with instructions to grant Jewell's petition to quash the two summonses).View "Jewell v. United States" on Justia Law

Sixteen years ago Carolyn Bayless began to suffer from a mysterious illness. As her condition deteriorated, she sought to learn what caused (and how to treat) her illness. In 2008, convinced that she was the victim of exposure to nerve gas emitted by an Army testing facility, she filed a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. When this lawsuit followed in 2009, the Army responded that she knew of her claim by at least 2005 and had waited too long to assert it. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment dismissing the case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under the "unusual circumstances presented here," the period of limitation did not accrue until February 2007. Therefore, the Court reversed. View "Bayless v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

In 2005, a Kansas state court jury convicted Kenneth Frost of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in violation of Kansas state law. His attorney failed to obtain the child’s medical records, which could have been used to impeach the child’s mother and challenge the prosecution’s corroborative evidence. Frost moved for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After conducting hearings, the state trial court denied the motion and sentenced Frost to 204 months in prison. The Kansas Court of Appeals (KCOA) affirmed. Although it determined that Frost’s trial counsel provided deficient performance by failing to request the child’s medical records, the KCOA concluded counsel’s performance did not prejudice Frost. The Kansas Supreme Court denied discretionary review. Frost then sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, arguing: (1) his attorney’s failure to investigate the child’s medical records violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) several other claims involving ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct. The federal district court denied relief on the first ineffective assistance claim relating to the child’s medical records because of the deference owed to state court decisions on the merits under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The court dismissed Frost’s remaining claims as procedurally barred. It nonetheless issued Frost a Certificate of Appealability on “the [sole] issue [of] whether [Mr. Frost’s] trial counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate the child’s medical records.” Frost appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) the district court incorrectly denied relief on the merits of his ineffective assistance claim; and (2) the Court should also grant relief on his procedurally barred claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief on the first issue. As to his second issue, the Court denied a COA on all remaining claims. View "Frost v. McKune, et al" on Justia Law

Salt Creek Road is an unimproved 12.3-mile road intertwined with the creek bed in Salt Creek Canyon. The state and county wanted to use their claimed right-of-way to prevent the United States from closing the Salt Creek Road to vehicle traffic. The road is the primary way for tourists to reach several scenic sites within the Canyonlands National Park, including Angel Arch. Without vehicle access, the only way to access Angel Arch is to make the nine-mile trek by foot. The state and county based their claim on Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477: "[T]he right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." Congress enacted R.S. 2477 in 1866, and it remained in effect until 1976. Even then, however, Congress preserved the rights-of-way established under the statute. This Quiet Title Act case presented to the Tenth Circuit the issue of whether the district court erred in rejecting the claims of San Juan County and the State of Utah to Salt Creek Road. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "San Juan County, Utah v. United States " on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Miguel Castro-Perez appealed the district court's judgment sentencing him to sixty-three months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release, arguing the court improperly applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. Finding that the district court erred in calculating defendant's sentence, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Castro-Perez" on Justia Law

J. Hoyt Stephenson incorporated National Financial Systems Management, Inc. (NFSM) in Utah. The same day, the NFSM Employee Stock Ownership Plan was created. The Plan has always owned 100% of NFSM’s stock. Stephenson was one of the Plan’s trustees. In June 2006, Stephenson, along with his wife and children, moved from Utah to Wyoming, and as a result, Stephenson became a Wyoming citizen. About a year later, Stephenson sold one of his companies, National Financial Systems, Inc. (NFS) to NFSM. Then he sold another one, Metronomics Inc. to NFSM. In June 2009, Stephenson and his family went back to Utah. The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether Stephenson became a Utah citizen when he moved back. Brent Middleton, the Stock Plan's trustee, and several others (all Utah citizens), brought several federal-law claims Stephenson in the federal district court. Stephenson fought back with state-law counterclaims and a third-party complaint asserting state-law claims against multiple third-party defendants. The district court dismissed those counterclaims and third-party claims, concluding that it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear them because Stephenson also was from Utah. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Stephenson was a Utah citizen. View "Middleton, et al v. Stephenson, et al" on Justia Law

In June 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the claims of J. Hoyt Stephenson (a man the district found to be a Utah citizen), for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Less than three months later, Stephenson assigned his interests in various stock and real property to a new company of his creation, National Fitness Holdings, Inc., a Wyoming corporation of which Stephenson was the sole director, officer and shareholder. Four days later, National Fitness sued Grand View Corporate Centre, LLC in federal district court. The district court once again dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this time finding that Stephenson had impermissibly made the assignments to manufacture diversity jurisdiction. Upon review of the appeal of that decision, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in finding it lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "National Fitness Holdings v. Grandview Corporate Center, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tina Wiseman appealed her sentence on one count of conspiring to distribute oxycodone following a guilty plea. She argued on appeal that the federal district court erred by refusing to consider the disparity between her sentence and similarly situated defendants sentenced in Utah state court. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence defendant received. View "United States v. Wiseman" on Justia Law