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

Julian Manzano was pulled over by Oklahoma City police on March 26, 2022, just twenty-five days after being released from a thirteen-year prison sentence. During the stop, officers smelled burnt marijuana and found a .45 caliber pistol and ammunition in his car. Manzano admitted ownership of the firearm. Due to a prior 2009 conviction for second-degree murder in Oklahoma, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and pled guilty.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Manzano, applying a higher base offense level based on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) which classified his prior second-degree murder conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Manzano objected, arguing that his prior conviction did not meet the criteria for a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. The district court disagreed and sentenced him to 27 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Oklahoma's second-degree murder statute, which includes homicides committed during the commission of any felony, does not categorically match the federal definition of "murder" under the Guidelines. The federal definition requires the underlying felony to be "dangerous," whereas Oklahoma law allows for potentially dangerous felonies to qualify. This broader scope means that Oklahoma second-degree murder criminalizes more conduct than the federal definition of "murder." Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing, finding that Manzano's prior conviction should not have been classified as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Manzano" on Justia Law

In 2013, Ronald Fossat, a coal miner, filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA). Fossat had worked in coal mines for 24 years, with 10 years underground and 14 years above ground. He suffered from severe respiratory issues and was on oxygen therapy. After filing his claim, he underwent medical evaluations, including those by Dr. Gagon (OWCP-sponsored) and Drs. Farney and Rosenberg (requested by his employer, Sunnyside Coal Company). The evaluations produced mixed results regarding the cause and extent of his respiratory impairment.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Fossat benefits in 2021, concluding that he was totally disabled based on arterial blood gas studies and medical opinions. Sunnyside appealed to the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Sunnyside then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for review, arguing that the agency’s interpretation of the BLBA was erroneous and that the ALJ’s medical merits analysis was flawed.The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and rejected Sunnyside’s arguments. The court held that Fossat’s employment qualified him for the rebuttable presumption under the BLBA, as he had worked for more than 15 years in an underground coal mine, including above-ground work at the same mine. The court also found that the ALJ correctly applied the burden of proof and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Fossat was totally disabled. The court further determined that any error in admitting a supplemental medical report was harmless, as the ALJ’s conclusions were supportable without it. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit denied Sunnyside’s petition for review. View "Sunnyside Coal Company v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted on 12 counts related to fraudulently obtaining federal funds intended for COVID-19 relief. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the district court erred by reading the jury instructions only at the outset of the presentation of evidence and not again after the close of evidence.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas had indicted the defendant on 19 counts, including bank fraud, false statements to a bank and the Small Business Administration, wire fraud, and money laundering. The indictment alleged that he obtained COVID-19 relief funds by making false representations regarding the workforce of three entities. During a pretrial conference, the district court decided to read the jury instructions before the presentation of evidence and provide jurors with individual copies of the instructions. The trial proceeded, and the court read all 40 primary instructions to the jury before any evidence was introduced. After the close of evidence, the court denied the defense's motion to reread eight specific instructions, allowing defense counsel to refer to them during closing arguments instead.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the defendant did not preserve his argument that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(c) required the court to instruct the jury after the close of evidence. The court applied plain-error review and determined that the defendant could not prevail because he did not show that any error was plain or that it affected the outcome of the proceeding. The court noted that the district court had provided jurors with written copies of the instructions and allowed defense counsel to refer to them during closing arguments. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Capps" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the allocation of attorneys' fees from a $1.51 billion settlement between Syngenta AG and numerous plaintiffs. The settlement arose after Syngenta failed to obtain regulatory approval for its genetically modified corn seeds to be imported into China, leading to significant financial losses for American corn farmers and producers. As part of the settlement, $503 million was allocated for attorneys' fees, which was divided into four pools: three common benefit pools and one for individually retained private attorneys (IRPAs). The IRPA pool was allocated $60 million.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially approved the allocation scheme and the modification of contingent-fee contracts, capping IRPA fees at approximately 10% of their clients' recovery. The Objecting Firms, including Hossley-Embry and Byrd/Shields, challenged this allocation and the modification of their fee contracts. They filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the settlement claims process was more complex than anticipated, requiring additional work. The district court denied these motions, and the Objecting Firms appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's allocation scheme and the modification of the contingent-fee contracts in In re Syngenta I. The current appeal focuses on the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, which adopted the special master's recommendations on the allocation of the $60 million within the IRPA pool. The Objecting Firms argued that the district court's allocation was insufficient and that their due process rights were violated.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, concluding that the Objecting Firms failed to raise any arguments within the scope of the appeal, which was limited to the allocation of the IRPA pool itself. The court also dismissed the contingent cross-appeal by MDL Co-Lead Counsel as moot, given the affirmation of the district court's order. View "In re: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Brent Electric Company (Brent) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 584 (the Union) have had a long-standing relationship since 1996. In 2018, they entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that included an interest-arbitration clause allowing either party to unilaterally submit unresolved issues to arbitration if negotiations for a new CBA failed. In 2020, Brent terminated its authorization for the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) to negotiate on its behalf and later stopped contributing to the Union pension fund. The Union filed a grievance, and the Labor Management Committee ruled in favor of the Union. In 2021, Brent and the Union failed to negotiate a new CBA, leading the Union to unilaterally submit the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator imposed a new CBA, which included both mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Brent’s complaint to vacate the arbitration award and granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment to enforce the award. The district court found that the interest-arbitration clause in the 2018 CBA was broad and unambiguous, covering all unresolved issues, including permissive subjects of bargaining. The court also rejected Brent’s argument that the arbitration award violated public policy or the Federal Arbitration Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the presumption of arbitrability applied because the interest-arbitration clause was validly formed and unambiguously covered both mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining. The court rejected Brent’s argument that it had a statutory right to refuse the imposition of permissive subjects, noting that Brent had contractually agreed to the interest-arbitration clause. The court also found no violation of public policy, as the arbitration award did not include a self-perpetuating interest-arbitration clause. Finally, the court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed its powers under the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Brent Electric Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers" on Justia Law

A mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, Luis Quiroga, was assaulted by a man wielding a knife while delivering mail in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Quiroga described the assailant to police as a Hispanic man in a yellow sweater and blue jeans. Shortly after, police apprehended Elias Gallegos, who matched the description, following a chase during which he discarded his sweater and a knife. Quiroga identified Gallegos in a show-up procedure, despite the suggestive nature of the identification.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico admitted Quiroga’s identification testimony and evidence of Gallegos’s flight. Gallegos was convicted of assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon. He appealed, arguing that the identification was unreliable due to the suggestive show-up procedure and that the evidence of his flight was improperly admitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that, despite the suggestive nature of the show-up, Quiroga’s identification was reliable based on the totality of the circumstances, including his opportunity to view the assailant, the accuracy of his description, and his certainty during the identification. The court also upheld the admission of evidence of Gallegos’s flight, finding it relevant to his consciousness of guilt and intrinsic to the charged offense. The court concluded that the probative value of the flight evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.The Tenth Circuit affirmed Gallegos’s conviction, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the identification testimony or the evidence of flight. View "United States v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Enrique Martinez-Espinoza was found illegally reentering the United States from Mexico while on supervised release for a prior unauthorized reentry. He pleaded guilty under a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, but the district court rejected the plea because his criminal history disqualified him from the proposed downward departure. The court also revoked his supervised release without a separate hearing, based on the same conduct.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico initially handled the case. Martinez-Espinoza was charged with reentry of a removed alien and pleaded guilty. A petition to revoke his supervised release was also filed. The district court rejected the plea agreement due to his criminal history and proceeded to sentencing without informing him of his rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5). The court also revoked his supervised release without a separate hearing, relying on his admission to the reentry offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court plainly erred by not informing Martinez-Espinoza of his rights under Rule 11(c)(5) but concluded that this error did not affect his substantial rights. The court also determined that the revocation of supervised release was adequately supported by his admission to violating the terms of his supervised release. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Martinez-Espinoza" on Justia Law

In late summer 2018, lightning ignited the Bald Mountain and Pole Creek Fires in remote areas of Utah's national forests. The Forest Service initially decided to monitor and contain the fires, believing they could benefit the forest environment. However, unpredicted high winds caused the fires to expand, leading the Forest Service to shift to full suppression efforts. Despite these efforts, the fires burned approximately 100,000 acres of public and private lands. The Strawberry Water Users Association sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging mismanagement of the wildfires.The United States District Court for the District of Utah held that the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA applied, stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear the claims. The court found that the Forest Service's decisions involved judgment calls grounded in policy considerations, such as firefighter safety and resource management. The Strawberry Water Users Association appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the discretionary-function exception applied because the Forest Service's actions involved policy judgments and were within the scope of its authority. The court noted that the Forest Service's decisions were based on balancing various public-policy interests, including safety and environmental benefits. The court also rejected the argument that the Forest Service acted without authority or violated mandatory regulations, concluding that the agency had the discretion to manage the wildfires as it did. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Strawberry Water Users Association v. United States" on Justia Law

Josh and Mackie were partners in a marijuana business, Culta, LLC, in Maryland. Josh temporarily relinquished his ownership due to concerns about a past misdemeanor affecting their license application, with an agreement to be reinstated later. However, Mackie prevented Josh from rejoining. Josh sued Mackie and Trellis Holdings Maryland, Inc. (Trellis), Mackie’s company, for breach of contract. The district court found Mackie and Trellis liable and awarded Josh $6.4 million in damages. Mackie and Trellis did not appeal or pay the judgment.Josh sought to enforce the judgment. The district court ordered Mackie and Trellis to sell Trellis’s equity in Culta and turn over the proceeds to Josh, and to avoid devaluing the equity until the sale. Mackie and Trellis appealed, arguing for the first time that enforcing the judgment would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and that the district court lacked authority under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 69(g). They also moved the district court to reconsider the original judgment, which was denied, leading to a second appeal. The appeals were consolidated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the original judgment, rejecting Mackie and Trellis’s argument that Josh lacked standing. The court found that Josh had standing as he suffered an injury from the breach of contract, caused by Mackie and Trellis, and the damages awarded were redressable. The court also held that the district court had authority under C.R.C.P. 69(g) to issue the judgment enforcement order, as a charging order was not the exclusive remedy and Mackie and Trellis had sufficient control over Trellis’s equity.However, the Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment enforcement order due to concerns that it might require Mackie and Trellis to violate federal drug laws, and remanded the case for further proceedings to address these public policy concerns. View "Bartch v. Barch" on Justia Law

Dr. Francis Joseph, founder of Springs Medical Associates in Colorado Springs, submitted false applications to federal COVID-19 relief programs between March and June 2020. He received over $250,000 in federal aid, which he concealed from the practice's leadership and used for personal expenses. Joseph was convicted by a jury in 2023 on two counts of fraud.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado oversaw the initial trial. Joseph was found guilty of embezzlement or theft of health care benefit program funds and wire fraud. He was sentenced to thirty months in prison and ordered to pay restitution. Joseph appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent, improper limitations on cross-examination, erroneous admission of expert testimony as lay testimony, improper admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, and incorrect jury instructions. He also challenged the calculation of economic loss under the sentencing guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found ample direct and circumstantial evidence supporting Joseph's intent to commit fraud. It upheld the district court's limitations on cross-examination and exclusion of certain exhibits, finding no abuse of discretion. The court acknowledged an error in admitting expert testimony as lay testimony but deemed it harmless due to corroborating evidence. The court also upheld the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, finding it relevant to Joseph's intent and not unduly prejudicial. The court found no error in the jury instructions and affirmed the district court's calculation of economic loss, including Joseph's first failed PPP loan application as relevant conduct.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Joseph's convictions and sentence were supported by sufficient evidence and proper legal procedures. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law