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

The issue this case presented for appellate review centered on the air pollution controls on certain coal-fired power plants in Utah that contributed to regional haze. This haze impaired visibility in national parks and wilderness areas across the United States (known as Class I areas). Following Congress’s direction in the Clean Air Act (the CAA or Act) to regulate regional haze, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to restore natural background visibility conditions in Class I areas by the year 2064. To comply with the CAA’s regional haze requirements, states with Class I areas, or states releasing emissions that may affect visibility in those areas, had to implement the best available retrofit technology (BART) on certain existing sources of air pollution or, alternatively, adopt measures that achieved greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. The Act required each state to develop a state implementation plan (SIP) for mitigating emissions that contribute to regional haze. The EPA then reviewed the SIP to determine if it satisfied the Act. EPA twice disapproved Utah’s SIPs addressing visibility-impairing emissions at power plants operated by Respondent-Intervenor PacifiCorp. Eventually, EPA approved Utah’s July 2019 revised SIP. In the Final Rule, EPA endorsed Utah’s decision to adopt an alternative measure instead of BART to control for visibility-impairing emissions at the power plants. Petitioners Heal Utah, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Utah Physicians sought review of the Final Rule. According to Petitioners, EPA abused its discretion by approving Utah’s revised SIP because Utah’s alternative measure did not satisfy the CAA’s national visibility goals. They also argued EPA failed to respond to certain comments Petitioners submitted during the rulemaking process. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Heal Utah, et al. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

In 2017, defendant-appellant Winter Rose Old Rock pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. After completing her prison sentence, she began serving a three-year term of supervised release. Fourteen months later, she committed several violations of the terms of her release. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and (h), the district court revoked her supervision and sentenced her to time served and thirty-one months of post-release supervision. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, Old Rock objected to the new term of supervised release, arguing the term unconstitutionally exceeded the thirty-six-month maximum set out in § 3583 when combined with the post-release supervision she already served. The district court rejected this argument, citing a lack of precedent supporting the application of Apprendi to standard supervised release revocations. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed: “Our caselaw illustrates that § 3583 authorizes terms of supervision upon revocation that cumulatively surpass the statutory maximum when combined with the defendant’s prior time served on supervision.” The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court also determined that despite Old Rock’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal, the government forfeited its request for dismissal by not complying with 10th Cir. R. 27.3. View "United States v. Old Rock" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Edmond Warrington was charged in Oklahoma state court after he engaged in sexual activity with his mentally disabled, 18-year-old adopted niece. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the federal government took over prosecution for the alleged sexual abuse. The district court denied a motion to suppress inculpatory statements Warrington made to federal agents during transport from state to federal custody. Warrington proceeded to trial, where he was convicted by a jury of three counts of sexual abuse in Indian Country and sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court also imposed a $15,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (“JVTA”), a penalty of $5,000 for each count of conviction. On appeal, Warrington argued: (1) the district court erred in denying his suppression motion because the agents questioned him in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and (2) the court plainly erred in imposing the JVTA assessment on a per count basis instead of imposing one $5,000 penalty in the case. The Tenth Circuit concluded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached in the federal proceeding and, in any event, Warrington voluntarily waived his right to counsel after receiving a Miranda warning, therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Warrington’s second issue raised was an issue of first impression for the Tenth Circuit, and the Court concluded the trial court did not commit plain error. View "United States v. Warrington" on Justia Law

Wichita Police were conducting a proactive patrol in a high-crime area. After officers pulled over Defendant John Canada for failing to engage his turn signal, one officer saw Defendant “strenuously arching his hips, reaching his right arm under the rear of his seat. Officers also believed Defendant delayed bringing his vehicle to a stop, which caused them concern. Defendant claimed the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to engage in a protective sweep. To this, the Tenth Circuit disagreed: the officers here could not have been sure that Defendant was dangerous or had a weapon present. But the furtive movement and slow roll provided enough for the officers to reasonably suspect that Defendant was both dangerous and had access to a weapon.” View "United States v. Canada" on Justia Law

Three conservation groups challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of Jonah Energy’s development project on state and federal land in Wyoming. The project was designed to drill exploratory wells on land for which Jonah possessed development rights. The conservation groups argued the district court erred in upholding the BLM’s approval under the National Environmental Protection Act and the Federal Land Polocy and Management Act. Specifically, they contended the BLM inadequately considered the impact of the project on the sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope migration and grazing patterns. The Tenth Circuit concluded the BLM adequately collected and considered information on the sage-grouse and pronghorn, and selected a development plan that met statutory requirements. View "Western Watersheds Project, et al. v. United States Bureau of Land Management, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants were salespersons who sold solar lenses to investors on behalf of RaPower-3, LLC, International Automated Systems, Inc. (“IAS”), LTB1, LLC and their subsidiaries (collectively, the “Receivership Entities”). Appellants appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of R. Wayne Klein, the Receiver who controlled the Receivership Entities. In an adjunct action, the government filed suit against Receivership Defendants Nelson Johnson and R. Gregory Shepard for allegedly operating a fraudulent and unlawful solar energy tax scheme in which they encouraged investors to take federal tax deductions for purchasing defunct solar technology. The district court enjoined the entities from continuing to promote the scheme, ordered disgorgement of their gross receipts, and appointed Klein as the Receiver with full control of their assets and business operations. The Receiver then filed suits against individuals and entities (including Appellants) that were paid commissions for selling the Receiver Defendants’ solar lenses to investors. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Receiver on his claims. Appellants appealed, arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Receiver’s Uniform Voidable Transaction Act (“UTVA”) claim, as Appellants allegedly gave reasonably equivalent value for the commissions they received. They also claimed the court’s disgorgement order was improper. Finding no reversible error, however, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Klein v. Roe" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeriah Budder, an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, killed David Jumper in Indian Country. He was charged by the State of Oklahoma with first-degree manslaughter. THe charges were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the wake of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020). A federal grand jury then indicted Defendant on three charges: (1) first-degree murder in Indian country; (2) carrying, using, brandishing and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and (3) causing the death of another in the course of (2). On appeal, defendant argued he was denied the due process of law guaranteed by the federal constitution because the retroactive application of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020) deprived him of Oklahoma’s law of self-defense, which he argued was broader than the defense available to him under federal law. The Tenth Circuit held that the application of McGirt did not constitute an impermissible retroactive application of a judicial decision. Further, the Court rejected defendant’s argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Budder" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Montgomery Akers appealed a district court order imposing upon him a $40,000 punitive sanction for advancing frivolous arguments and assertions in a request for release pending appeal (the “Motion”). “Akers is a chronic abuser of the federal court system.” Although he pleaded guilty in 2005 to one count of wire fraud and entered into a plea agreement that contained a waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence, he filed a number of appeals to the Tenth Circuit. Akers claims the district court erred in imposing any sanction given its determination the Motion was not wholly frivolous. Alternatively, he argued the district court erred when it failed to consider the reasonableness of the amount of the sanction. Finding only that the district court’s findings were insufficient with respect to the reasonableness of the sanction, the Tenth Circuit remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Akers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Zubair Kazi, through co-plaintiff KFC of Pueblo, Inc., owned the only Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Pueblo, Colorado. In 2019 Defendant KFC US, LLC licensed a second Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Pueblo. Kazi believed that KFC acted improperly in how it went about licensing this second restaurant and sued KFC for breach of contract, bad faith (breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing), promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. His lawsuit went to trial on his bad-faith claim only, and the jury found in his favor. KFC appealed. The Tenth Circuit held that Kazi’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was barred by Kentucky law because KFC’s alleged bad faith did not undermine any benefit or protection afforded to Kazi by his franchise agreement with KFC. The court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of KFC and against Kazi and KFC of Pueblo, Inc. View "Kazi, et al. v. KFC US" on Justia Law

Petitioner Dennis Arostegui-Maldonado, a citizen of Costa Rica and El Salvador, was removed from the United States in 2008. In 2021, he reentered. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstated his removal order. Arostegui-Maldonado told an asylum officer that he feared persecution or torture in Costa Rica and El Salvador. The officer referred his case to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) for “withholding-only proceedings” to decide whether to forbid his removal to those countries. The IJ denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Arostegui-Maldonado challenged the agency’s rulings on the merits, arguing: (1) the IJ misapplied the “under color of law” element to his Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim; (2) the BIA ignored his CAT claim; (3) the IJ failed to fully develop the record; and (4) the IJ and the BIA violated his due process rights. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Arostegui-Maldonado that the IJ misapplied “under color of law” to his CAT claim, and granted the petition on that ground. The Court otherwise denied the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland" on Justia Law