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

The defendant was indicted on charges of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He reached a plea agreement with the government to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge in exchange for the dismissal of the distribution charge. However, during the change-of-plea hearing, the defendant claimed he was only partially guilty and stated that he joined the conspiracy under duress. Consequently, the district court rejected his guilty plea. The defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted on both charges.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming initially handled the case. After the defendant's guilty plea was rejected, the case went to trial, where a jury found him guilty of both conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. The defendant appealed the district court's decision to reject his guilty plea.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the district court erred in rejecting his guilty plea, asserting that his plea colloquy provided a sufficient factual basis for the plea and did not establish a duress defense. The Tenth Circuit assumed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea but held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea. The court noted that the district court had the discretion to reject a guilty plea when the defendant claims innocence, and it found no plain error in the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC transitioned a petroleum refinery into a renewable diesel production facility in 2021. During this transition, HollyFrontier reassigned work from hourly workers to salaried employees with higher education and technical expertise. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 11-574 filed a grievance, alleging that this reassignment violated their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). An arbitrator ruled in favor of HollyFrontier on the reassignment issue but also decided that salaried employees should be included in the bargaining unit, an issue not submitted for arbitration.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming reviewed the case and granted HollyFrontier's petition to vacate the arbitrator's decision regarding the inclusion of salaried employees in the bargaining unit. The court reasoned that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by deciding an issue that was not submitted for arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award. The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by addressing an issue not submitted for arbitration. The parties had only submitted the issue of whether HollyFrontier's reassignment of work violated the CBA, and the arbitrator's decision to include salaried employees in the bargaining unit was beyond the scope of the submitted issue. The court emphasized that arbitration is limited to the issues the parties agree to submit, and the arbitrator must stay within those bounds. View "HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. United Steel Paper" on Justia Law

The case involves Plaintiff Tyler Luethje, who filed a § 1983 complaint against Defendants Travis Kyle and Scott Kelly, both employed by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. On February 11, 2022, the deputies responded to a 911 call about a broken window at Luethje’s residence. Upon arrival, they sent a police canine, Sig, into the house without announcing themselves. Sig bit Luethje, who was in bed, and continued to bite him while the deputies questioned him. Luethje was then handcuffed and taken to the hospital. He was not charged with any crime.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case and denied the deputies' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that the deputies violated Luethje’s Fourth Amendment rights regarding unlawful entry and search, unlawful arrest, and excessive force. The court found that the law clearly established these rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the deputies’ actions violated Luethje’s constitutional rights and that these rights were clearly established. The court found that the deputies lacked an objectively reasonable belief in an ongoing emergency to justify the warrantless entry, did not have probable cause for the arrest, and used excessive force by allowing the canine to continue biting Luethje after he was subdued. View "Luethje v. Kyle" on Justia Law

Charles Warner was convicted in federal district court in New Mexico for being a felon in possession of a firearm and dealing in firearms without a license. Warner appealed his conviction on four grounds: he argued that he was not prohibited from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), that his suppression challenge regarding evidence seized at his house was improperly denied, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of dealing in firearms without a license, and that the number of firearms in his possession was improperly counted.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Warner's pre-trial motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge and his motion to suppress evidence seized from his computers. At trial, Warner testified that he knew he was a convicted felon but did not know he was prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. The jury convicted Warner on both counts. At sentencing, the district court applied a sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms, based on expert testimony, and sentenced Warner to 33 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Warner is a "prohibited person" under § 922(g) because he has two prior state-law felony convictions for which he could have been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment and has not had all of his civil rights restored. The court also rejected Warner's constitutional challenge to § 922(g), holding that it is foreclosed by recent Tenth Circuit precedent. The court found that any alleged error in the denial of Warner's suppression motion was harmless because none of the evidence Warner sought to suppress was used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Warner of dealing in firearms without a license and affirmed the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Warner's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Warner" on Justia Law

Iron Bar Holdings, LLC, a private landowner in Wyoming, owns a checkerboarded ranch interspersed with federal and state public lands. The only way to access these public lands, other than by aircraft, is by corner-crossing, which involves stepping from one public parcel to another at their adjoining corners without touching the private land in between. In 2020 and 2021, a group of hunters from Missouri corner-crossed to hunt elk on the public lands within Iron Bar's ranch. Iron Bar's property manager confronted the hunters, and law enforcement was contacted, but no citations were issued. In 2021, the hunters were prosecuted for criminal trespass but were acquitted. Iron Bar then filed a civil lawsuit for trespassing, seeking $9 million in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted summary judgment in favor of the hunters, holding that corner-crossing without physically contacting private land and without causing damage does not constitute unlawful trespass. Iron Bar Holdings appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while Wyoming law recognizes a property owner's right to exclude others from their airspace, federal law, specifically the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) of 1885, overrides state law in this context. The UIA prohibits any inclosure of public lands that obstructs free passage or transit over them. The court found that Iron Bar's actions effectively enclosed public lands and prevented lawful access, which is prohibited by the UIA. The court affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the hunters to corner-cross as long as they did not physically touch Iron Bar's land. View "Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape" on Justia Law

Lance Maytubby was called to the police station by Officer T.J. White to answer questions regarding accusations of sexual abuse made by his nieces, R.L. and Z.L. During the interview, Officer White informed Maytubby that he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. The interview, which was recorded, took place in a non-coercive environment, and Officer White maintained a friendly tone. Despite initially denying the accusations, Maytubby eventually confessed after Officer White suggested that mitigating circumstances, such as Maytubby being a pastor and a family man, could be included in the report to the district attorney.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a pretrial suppression hearing where Officer White testified. The district court denied Maytubby's motion to suppress his confession, finding that the interrogation was not coercive and that Maytubby's statements were voluntary. The court noted factors such as the short duration of the interview, the non-coercive environment, and the absence of physical abuse or aggressive behavior by Officer White. A jury later convicted Maytubby on several counts of aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact, leading to a life sentence.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 Officer White's statements during the interview were not coercive and did not overbear Maytubby's will. The court found that the interview was conducted in a non-coercive manner, and Officer White's comments about including mitigating factors in the report were proper and did not imply control over sentencing. The court concluded that Maytubby's confession was voluntary and upheld the conviction. View "United States v. Maytubby" on Justia Law

Mr. Martin Lopez was convicted of carjacking and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The incident involved Mr. Lopez, his girlfriend, and her friend. The government claimed Mr. Lopez attempted to take his girlfriend’s car against her will, leading to a confrontation. Mr. Lopez raised two main issues on appeal: the introduction of testimonial hearsay violating evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause, and improper closing arguments by the prosecution.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico heard the case initially. During the trial, the government presented evidence including 911 call recordings, photos, and testimonies from lay witnesses and law enforcement officers. Mr. Lopez objected to parts of the officers' testimonies, arguing they implied hearsay from his girlfriend, who did not testify at trial. The district court overruled these objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the officers' testimonies did not clearly or obviously imply hearsay statements from Mr. Lopez’s girlfriend, as the testimonies were ambiguous and did not provide identifiable statements. The court also determined that the government’s closing arguments, which referenced threats against witnesses and their fears, were not plainly improper. The court noted that the statements were supported by evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.The Tenth Circuit concluded that there were no reversible errors in the district court’s handling of the hearsay objections or the closing arguments. Consequently, the court affirmed Mr. Lopez’s conviction. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, Ismael Vazquez-Garcia, was sentenced to 48 months for illegal reentry after being found by Border Patrol agents in New Mexico. He had previously been removed from the U.S. following a 2018 child-abuse conviction. At sentencing, the district court questioned him about the child-abuse conviction, which involved allegations of molestation. The court then imposed an 18-month upward variance from the recommended sentencing range of 24 to 30 months.The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico had adopted the unobjected-to allegations in the presentence report (PSR) about the child-abuse offense and varied upwards based on his criminal history. Vazquez-Garcia appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court erred by relying on the PSR's allegations and by varying upwards based on his criminal history, which he claimed was already accounted for in the Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Vazquez-Garcia had not shown his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because he did not object to the PSR's allegations, and the district court was permitted to adopt those unobjected-to facts. The court also found that the district court did not err by considering his criminal history for the upward variance. Additionally, the court ruled that the sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court's focus on the child-abuse conviction was relevant to multiple sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence. View "United States v. Vazquez-Garcia" on Justia Law

Manuel Lucero III, a convicted felon, pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. At his sentencing, the district court denied his motion for continuance and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment, an upward variance from the Guideline range of 57–71 months. The court based this decision on various factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, including the violent nature of Lucero’s offense and the need for adequate deterrence.Lucero appealed, arguing that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that the denial of his motion for continuance was improper. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had adequately explained the reasons for the sentencing enhancement, considering the § 3553(a) factors and the facts presented. The court also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, as Lucero was not materially prejudiced by the denial.The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error in explaining the upward variance, considering information in the presentence report, or relying on the officer’s testimony. The court also found that Lucero’s sentence was substantively reasonable, given his lengthy and violent criminal history and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, as the defense counsel lacked diligence, and the continuance was unlikely to have been helpful.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Lucero’s 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Lucero" on Justia Law

Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum in the United States, claiming that he faced persecution in India due to his political affiliation with the Mann party, a Sikh nationalist group. Singh testified that he was wrongfully arrested and tortured by Indian police in 2000, and that he was attacked twice by political opponents in 2017. He argued that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him from these private persecutors.An immigration judge (IJ) found Singh removable and denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal, concluding that Singh had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ noted that Singh had been acquitted of the false charges from 2000 and that the police officers involved had been removed from their positions. The IJ also found that Singh had not reported the 2017 attacks to the police, undermining his claim that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, emphasizing that Singh had not shown that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Singh's petition for review. The court held that the BIA did not misinterpret the "unable or unwilling" standard for asylum claims based on private persecution. The court found that the BIA had considered both the Indian government's willingness and ability to protect Singh. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Singh had not demonstrated that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The court noted that Singh had been acquitted of the false charges from 2000, that the police officers involved had been removed, and that Singh had not reported the 2017 attacks to the police. The court denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law