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

Craig Gordon and Ronald Darnell Brown were each indicted for possession of a firearm while subject to a court order that explicitly prohibited the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. Gordon had threatened his ex-partner and caused minor injuries to his daughter, leading to a protective order against him. Brown had violently attacked his girlfriend, resulting in a protective order that also prohibited him from possessing firearms. Both were found in possession of firearms after these orders were issued.The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied their motions to dismiss the indictments, which argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) was facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The defendants then entered conditional pleas, preserving their rights to appeal the district court’s decisions. After sentencing, they appealed, and their appeals were abated pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the appeals were resumed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the statute is constitutional in some of its applications, particularly when a protective order is issued based on a judicial determination that the individual poses a threat of physical violence. The court emphasized that the statute aims to mitigate demonstrated threats of physical violence and does not broadly restrict arms use by the public. The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Omari Davis was convicted in 2019 under Colorado law for possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance, which turned out to be baking soda. This offense is classified as a level-4 drug felony, the lowest level in Colorado, with a presumptive sentencing range of six months to one year. However, under certain aggravating circumstances, the sentence could be extended to a maximum of two years. Davis was sentenced to two years of probation, with no aggravating circumstances identified or admitted.In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Davis was indicted in 2022 on two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Davis moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that his 2019 conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense under § 922(g)(1) because it carried a presumptive maximum sentence of one year. The district court denied his motion, concluding that Colorado courts always have the discretion to impose a sentence greater than the presumptive range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis's 2019 conviction did not meet the prior-conviction requirement of § 922(g)(1) because there were no aggravating circumstances in the record that could have permitted a sentence exceeding one year. The court emphasized that under Colorado law, a sentence in the aggravated range requires specific findings of aggravating circumstances, which were absent in Davis's case. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit vacated Davis's conviction under § 922(g)(1). View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

J.H. participated in an employee welfare-benefit plan insured by Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, with her son, A.H., as a beneficiary. After seeking benefits for A.H.'s yearlong stay at a mental-health treatment center, Anthem denied coverage, and Plaintiffs' appeal to Anthem was unsuccessful. Over a year after their final appeal through Anthem was decided, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to recover benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the action, concluding it was time-barred under a provision of the Plan that required civil actions under ERISA § 502(a) to be brought within one year of the grievance or appeal decision. Plaintiffs argued that another sentence in the Plan set a three-year limitations period, creating an ambiguity that should be interpreted in their favor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the two provisions were not inconsistent and both applied. The court explained that the one-year limitations period for § 502(a) actions and the three-year limitations period for other actions were distinct and could both be applicable. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that Plaintiffs' action was time-barred as it was filed beyond the one-year limitations period specified in the Plan. View "J.H. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance" on Justia Law

Defendant Xavier Zamora, then seventeen, shot and killed Jose Hernandez, a U.S. postal worker, during a domestic dispute with his mother. The United States charged Zamora as a juvenile under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA). The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico certified that there was a substantial federal interest in the case, allowing for federal jurisdiction. Zamora was transferred to adult status and pleaded guilty to Second Degree Murder of a U.S. Employee and Possessing a Firearm in Furtherance of Such Crime.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico accepted the certification and the transfer to adult status. Zamora pleaded guilty to the charges. On appeal, Zamora challenged the certification, arguing that no substantial federal interest existed and that the certification was facially deficient, thus the district court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the U.S. Attorney's certification of a substantial federal interest under the JDA is an unreviewable act of prosecutorial discretion. The court noted that the plain language of the JDA does not require the Attorney General to identify a specific substantial federal interest, only to certify that such an interest exists. The court joined the majority of other circuits in holding that the certification is not subject to judicial review. The court affirmed the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, finding the certification facially valid as it stated that there was a substantial federal interest in the charges. View "United States v. Zamora" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States, which under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) carries a maximum sentence that depends on the defendant’s criminal history. Without a prior felony, the maximum is two years; with a prior felony, it is ten years; and with an aggravated felony, it is twenty years. The defendant had two prior felony convictions, but neither was for an aggravated felony. However, the government and probation office mistakenly assumed one conviction was for an aggravated felony, suggesting a twenty-year maximum.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sentenced the defendant, possibly under the mistaken belief that the statutory maximum was twenty years. The defendant did not object to this error at the time. On appeal, both parties agreed that the correct statutory maximum was ten years, not twenty. The defendant argued that this error should be presumed prejudicial, while the government contended that the defendant must show actual prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government, stating that the defendant must show prejudice from the error. The court noted that other circuits have similarly required defendants to demonstrate prejudice in such situations. The court found no evidence that the district court’s error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, as the 42-month sentence was well below the correct ten-year maximum and at the bottom of the guideline range. The court concluded that the defendant did not show that the error had a substantial impact on his sentence and affirmed the 42-month sentence. View "United States v. Calderon-Padilla" on Justia Law

The case involves two Utah corporations, 3484, Inc. and 3486, Inc., created by film producer David Wulf to produce Hallmark movies. The companies shared personnel, including Jennifer Ricci and Brett Miller, who were responsible for various production roles. In April 2021, drivers employed by 3484 contacted a union representative to discuss organizing. Ricci questioned driver April Hanson about union activity and asked her to keep the conversation confidential. Later, Miller warned driver Roy Brewer that production would move to Canada if the drivers organized. The drivers went on strike, and after the strike, 3486 refused to reinstate them, alleging misconduct.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the Employers committed unfair labor practices, including unlawful interrogation and threats, and ordered remedies. The Employers argued that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's procedures and remedies were unauthorized or violated their constitutional rights. The Employers filed a petition for review, and the NLRB filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, except for the finding that 3484 unlawfully interrogated Hanson. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Employers' constitutional challenges and 3486's challenge to the Board's statutory authority because these arguments were not preserved for appellate review. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, except for the finding related to Hanson's interrogation, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "3484, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Brandon Richardson was sentenced to 182 months in prison in Missouri for federal firearm and drug convictions. Subsequently, he was transported to Oklahoma to face a federal charge of illegal possession of a firearm. Richardson pleaded guilty to the Oklahoma offense, and the district court sentenced him to 27 months, with 10 months to be served consecutively to the Missouri sentence. Richardson appealed, arguing that the Oklahoma court abused its discretion by imposing the consecutive sentence, claiming that the Missouri court had already punished him for the Oklahoma conduct.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Richardson to 27 months for the Oklahoma firearm possession charge, with 10 months to be served consecutively to his Missouri sentence. Richardson contended that the Missouri court had already accounted for his Oklahoma conduct in its sentencing, although he did not specify any time attributed to the Oklahoma conduct by the Missouri court. He also argued that the consecutive sentence created an unwarranted sentencing disparity compared to defendants sentenced under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with Richardson's arguments. The court found that the Oklahoma district court did not abuse its discretion under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) by treating the Oklahoma offense as independent of the Missouri offenses and imposing the 10-month consecutive sentence. The appellate court held that Richardson failed to show that the Missouri court had attributed any part of its sentence to his Oklahoma conduct. Additionally, the court found no unwarranted sentencing disparity, as Richardson did not request a transfer under Rule 20, and his comparators should be defendants sentenced outside of Rule 20. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Oklahoma court's sentence. View "United States v. Richardson" on Justia Law

In 2016, an anonymous user uploaded child pornography images to Chatstep, an internet chatroom service. Chatstep identified and reported the uploads to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) using Microsoft’s PhotoDNA. The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) in New Mexico traced the IP address to Guy Rosenschein and obtained a warrant to search his home, uncovering approximately 21,000 images and videos of child pornography. Rosenschein was indicted on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Rosenschein’s pre-trial motions to suppress evidence, dismiss the case, or compel discovery of the computer programs used by Microsoft and NCMEC. Rosenschein pleaded guilty to one count of possession and seven counts of distribution of child pornography, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of all three motions. The court held that Chatstep and Microsoft were not acting as governmental agents, so the Fourth Amendment did not apply to their conduct. Even if they were considered governmental agents, Rosenschein had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the images he uploaded to a public chatroom. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Rosenschein’s motion to compel discovery of NCMEC’s reporting system, since he had the opportunity to access the information through witness examination. Lastly, the court upheld the district court’s refusal to require expert reports for the government’s witnesses before the suppression hearing, since Rule 16(a)(1)(G) does not apply to suppression hearings. View "U.S. v. Rosenschein" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project, challenged a decision by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to open new domestic sheep grazing allotments, known as the Wishbone Allotments, in the Rio Grande National Forest, Colorado. The groups argued that the allotments posed a high risk of disease transmission to local populations of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, which are vulnerable to diseases from domestic sheep.The USFS had previously vacated larger grazing allotments in 2013 and 2015 due to high risks to bighorn sheep, based on a "risk of contact model" (RCM). However, in 2017, the USFS decided to open the Wishbone Allotments despite the RCM predicting a high risk of contact. The USFS justified this decision by considering additional local factors, such as geography and herding practices, which they claimed would mitigate the risk. The environmental groups objected, arguing that these local factors were unsupported by scientific data.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the groups' petition, finding that the USFS did not violate the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The groups then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.The Tenth Circuit found that the USFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the Wishbone Allotments. The court held that the USFS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for downgrading the RCM's high-risk rating based on local factors, which lacked scientific support. The court also found that the USFS did not adequately consider the cumulative impacts on neighboring bighorn sheep herds. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case to determine the appropriate remedy. View "WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service" on Justia Law

Stefan Green, a South African citizen, applied for an R-1 visa to serve as a worship leader at Calvary Albuquerque, Inc., a non-profit church in New Mexico. His application was denied by a consular officer, leading Calvary to sue, alleging the denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court dismissed the suit, citing the consular nonreviewability doctrine, which generally prevents judicial review of consular officers' visa decisions.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the case, ruling that RFRA did not authorize judicial review of the consular officer’s decision. The court also found that the consular officer provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the visa denial, and Calvary did not plausibly allege bad faith. The district court denied Calvary’s motion for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that RFRA does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers' visa decisions, thus upholding the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The court also concluded that even if RFRA claims could be considered under the constitutional claim exception, the consular officer provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying the visa, and Calvary did not plausibly allege bad faith. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Calvary Albuquerque v. Blinken" on Justia Law