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

A district court conducted two hours of voir dire in a courtroom closed to the public and broadcasted live over an audio feed. After Defendant Quentin Veneno, Jr. objected, the district court concluded that the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic justified its closure of the courtroom, but also provided a video feed for the rest of trial. Although Defendant objected to the initial audio-only feed after the initial two hours of voir dire, he never requested that the district court restart jury selection or moved for a mistrial. Defendant appealed both his conviction and challenged Congress’s constitutional authority to criminalize the conduct of Indians on tribal land, whether a previous conviction can be a predicate offense for 18 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1) convictions, and whether admission of other-act evidence met the rigors of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Veneno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Mark Wilson claimed his former employer, Schlumberger Technology Corporation, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by classifying him as exempt from overtime pay for hours worked beyond the 40-hour workweek. At trial, the jury agreed with Wilson and awarded him nearly $40,000 in overtime backpay. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court should not have instructed the jury to determine whether Wilson’s salary was exempt under regulations guiding the application of the FLSA. "That was a legal issue for the court to determine." Because the instruction caused the jury to find in Wilson’s favor, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "Wilson v. Schlumberger Technology" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Luis Leon was stopped by law enforcement after he was observed illegally driving in a passing lane. Leon was traveling eastbound on I-70 in Colorado when Colorado State Patrol Trooper Shane Gosnell observed him driving in the left lane while not passing another vehicle. Trooper Gosnell began to follow Leon’s 2006 Honda Ridgeline truck and noticed it had a Minnesota license plate. Trooper Gosnell initiated a traffic stop suspecting Leon was trafficking drugs. A search of his vehicle uncovered seventy-six pounds of methamphetamine, and Leon was charged with one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Following a failed motion to suppress, he pled guilty and was sentenced to seventy months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Leon challenged the denial of his suppression motion, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and investigate the suspected drug trafficking. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed and therefore reversed. View "United States v. Leon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Gary Waetzig filed an age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Because he was contractually bound to arbitrate his claim, he voluntarily dismissed his suit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and filed for arbitration. The arbitrator sided with Halliburton. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Waetzig returned to federal court. But instead of filing a new lawsuit challenging arbitration, he moved to reopen his age discrimination case and vacate the arbitration award. Relying on Rule 60(b), the district court concluded it had jurisdiction to consider Waetzig’s motion, reopened the case, and vacated the award. The Tenth Circuit found the district court erred: the district court could not reopen the case under Rule 60(b) after it had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) and 60(b), a court cannot set aside a voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is not a final judgment, order, or proceeding. View "Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion for reconsideration of the BIA’s dismissal of his motion to reopen proceedings. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied review because Velazquez failed to voluntarily depart or file an administrative motion within 60 calendar days, the maximum period provided by statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2). View "Monsalvo Velazquez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jeffery Sumka was sentenced to 137 months’ imprisonment for sexual abuse of a minor. At sentencing, the district court applied several enhancements over Sumka’s objection after finding that Sumka had undue influence over his victim, engaged in a pattern of illegal sexual conduct, and committed an offense involving a vulnerable victim. On appeal, Sumka challenged the application of these enhancements. After review, the Tenth Circuit found the court did not err in applying the enhancements and affirmed. View "United States v. Sumka" on Justia Law

Appellants Cole Matney and Paul Watts (together, "Matney") participated in an employer-sponsored retirement plan (the Plan). They brought a putative class action suit against Appellees, Barrick Gold of North America, Inc. (Barrick Gold), Barrick Gold’s Board of Directors (Board), and the Barrick U.S. Subsidiaries Benefits Committee (Committee)—for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor fiduciaries under sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Matney alleged the Committee breached the fiduciary duty of prudence by offering high-cost funds and charging high fees. He claimed Barrick Gold and the Board were responsible for failing to monitor the Committee’s actions. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding the first amended complaint did not plausibly allege any breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Finding no reversible error in this dismissal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Matney, et al. v. Barrick Gold of North America, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Diamond Britt was convicted of first-degree murder in Indian Country, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Britt appealed, arguing, in pertinent part, that the district court erred by refusing his counsel’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of imperfect self-defense. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Britt that the district court erred in this regard. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and conduct a new trial. View "United States v. Britt" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Isaiah Tryon accosted Tia Bloomer, his estranged girlfriend and the mother of his son, in a bus station and stabbed her seven times, resulting in her death. A jury convicted Tryon of first-degree murder. At sentencing, the State of Oklahoma (“State”) presented evidence of Tryon’s lengthy criminal history and impulsively violent behavior, including testimony about him physically abusing Bloomer on other occasions, discharging a firearm at a crowd of fleeing people, and fighting while in custody in 2009 and 2013. In a mitigation effort, Tryon highlighted his difficult upbringing, his parents’ substance abuse, his history of depression, several head injuries, and his low Intelligence Quotient (“IQ”). Tryon also presented expert testimony from John Fabian, a neuropsychologist who testified that Tryon was not intellectually disabled, and conceded that while an IQ score of 68 was low, it did not reflect Tryon’s full intellectual capacity. A jury sentenced Tryon to death. On direct appeal, appellate counsel raised twenty claims of error, none of which involved ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed Tryon’s conviction and sentence. In an application for state post-conviction relief, Tryon argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) not presenting an intellectual disability defense; (2) not obtaining neuroimaging of Tryon’s brain; and (3) not countering the 2009 jail fight evidence. The OCCA rejected these claims and affirmed the sentence. Tryon next sought federal habeas relief, while also filing a successive application for post-conviction relief with the OCCA. As to the successive application for post-conviction relief, the OCCA concluded all of Tryon’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were procedurally barred because he could have raised them in his original application for post-conviction relief. The federal court also denied relief on thel habeas petition. The issues Tryon's petition presented for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals centered on: (1) appellate counsel's decision not to present an intellectual disability defense; (2) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining and presenting neuroimages; (3) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing trial counsel was ineffective for not countering the 2009 jail fight evidence; and (4) cumulative error based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Having considered each of these issues, the Court found no reversible errors and affirmed Tryon's sentence. View "Tryon v. Quick" on Justia Law

Husband Steven McAnulty was married twice: once to Plaintiff Elizabeth McAnulty, and once to Defendant Melanie McAnulty. Husband's first marriage ended in divorce; the second ended with his death. Husband’s only life-insurance policy (the Policy) named Defendant as the beneficiary. But the Missouri divorce decree between Plaintiff and Husband required Husband to procure and maintain a $100,000 life-insurance policy with Plaintiff listed as sole beneficiary until his maintenance obligation to her was lawfully terminated (which never happened). Plaintiff sued Defendant and the issuer of the Policy, Standard Insurance Company (Standard), claiming unjust enrichment and seeking the imposition on her behalf of a constructive trust on $100,000 of the insurance proceeds. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed. By stipulation of the parties, Standard was dismissed with respect to this appeal. The only question to be resolved was whether Plaintiff stated a claim. Resolving that issue required the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to predict whether the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Illustration 26 in Comment g to § 48 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (Am. L. Inst. 2011) (the Restatement (Third)), which would recognize a cause of action in essentially the same circumstances. Because the Tenth Circuit predicted the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Illustration 26, the Court held Plaintiff has stated a claim of unjust enrichment, and accordingly reversed the previous dismissal of her case. View "McAnulty v. McAnulty, et al." on Justia Law