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

Defendant Stetson Bruce was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country for sexually abusing his five-year-old son, R.W. The trial included testimony from R.W. and his half-sister, E.R., who witnessed one of the acts. After their testimonies, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma admitted recordings of their forensic interviews, which were consistent with their trial testimonies. These recordings were not played in the courtroom but were available to the jury during deliberations.The district court denied Defendant's pretrial motion to exclude the recordings as hearsay, ruling they would be admitted upon proper foundation testimony. During the trial, the defense suggested that R.W. had been coached by the prosecutor and that E.R.'s memory was faulty. The district court admitted the recordings under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, allowing prior consistent statements to rebut charges of recent fabrication or to rehabilitate credibility when attacked on another ground. The jury found Defendant guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent life terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recordings as prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii). The court found that the defense's suggestions of coaching and faulty memory opened the door for the government to use the prior consistent statements to rebut these charges. The court also rejected Defendant's arguments that the district court ruled prematurely on the admission of the recordings and that it committed structural error by sending the recordings to the jury room rather than playing them in court. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "U.S. v. Bruce" on Justia Law

A fire destroyed the Chimayo post office in New Mexico, which was leased by Thomas Workman to the United States Postal Service (USPS). Workman filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to take five depositions before deciding whether to sue USPS. He claimed he needed these depositions to complete his investigation into the fire's cause, responsible parties, and USPS's operation of the facility. The petition was denied because Workman did not provide a valid reason why he could not already bring a lawsuit or explain why the testimony would be lost if not taken immediately.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Workman's petition. The court found that Workman failed to show an inability to bring a lawsuit and a risk of losing testimony. Workman argued that he could not bring his claims due to an incomplete investigation and that the testimony might be lost over time. However, the court determined that these reasons did not meet the requirements of Rule 27.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Workman did not demonstrate a true inability to bring a lawsuit or a sufficient risk of losing testimony. The court emphasized that Rule 27 is not intended for discovering facts to frame a complaint but to perpetuate known testimony that might be lost. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the petition. View "Workman v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

The case involves Calvin Woodmore, who was convicted for his role in a methamphetamine-trafficking ring in eastern Oklahoma. Woodmore was found guilty of conspiracy to commit drug trafficking, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. He appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing that the district court made several errors during his trial and sentencing.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma handled the case. Woodmore was convicted by a jury on all counts. He then moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to support the money laundering charges. The district court denied his motion and sentenced him to 324 months in prison for the drug trafficking conspiracy and 240 months for the money laundering charges, to be served concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Woodmore raised several issues on appeal, including the district court's failure to properly instruct the jury on the definition of "methamphetamine (actual)" and the right of attorneys to interview witnesses. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his money laundering convictions and the district court's calculation of his sentence.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court found that the jury instructions were adequate and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Woodmore's convictions. The court also upheld the district court's calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Woodmore and the application of sentencing enhancements. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Woodmore's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Woodmore" on Justia Law

The case involves the certification process for Surgical Technologists and Surgical Assistants, who assist surgeons in the operating room. The Association of Surgical Technologists (AST) represents Technologists, and the Association of Surgical Assistants (ASA) represents Assistants. The National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting (NBSTSA) certifies both professions. To maintain certification, professionals must either log continuing education credits or retake a certification exam. NBSTSA has only authorized AST to provide continuing education services, and ASA sought to become an authorized provider but was denied.ASA sued NBSTSA and AST in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging antitrust violations and tortious business interference. The district court dismissed ASA’s complaint, finding that ASA failed to establish a relevant market, monopoly power, a plausible conspiracy, and antitrust injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that ASA did not define the relevant market with reference to reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand. The court noted that ASA’s proposed market definition was too narrow and did not consider competing certifications or the option to recertify by examination. Additionally, the court found that ASA failed to allege a plausible conspiracy between NBSTSA and AST, as the allegations were conclusory and lacked specific factual support. The court also concluded that ASA did not demonstrate a cognizable antitrust injury, as the alleged harm was derivative and did not stem from a competition-reducing aspect of the defendants' behavior. View "Association of Surgical Assistants v. National Board of Surgical Technology" on Justia Law

Law enforcement identified the defendant as a supplier of methamphetamine and fentanyl in a drug-trafficking conspiracy in Kansas City. After seizing three pounds of methamphetamine from a car en route to the defendant, DEA agents enlisted the driver to continue the delivery to the defendant. The defendant was arrested upon arrival to collect the drugs. During custody, the defendant made incriminating statements and consented to a search of his cell phone. He later moved to suppress these statements and the phone's contents.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the suppression motions. The court ruled that the defendant's pre-Miranda statement about his cell phone number was admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. It also found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights and that his post-Miranda statements were not coerced. The court concluded that the defendant's consent to the cell phone search was voluntary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied to the pre-Miranda statement. It found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights, and his statements were not coerced. The court also held that the defendant's consent to the cell phone search was voluntary. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's findings and affirmed the denial of suppression. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

Wendy Johnson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter after causing the death of Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux in a drunk-driving accident. The government sought criminal restitution for Stephanie’s lost income, presenting testimony from an expert and Stephanie’s wife, Kristi Heneha-Roubidoux. Johnson argued for zero lost-income restitution, citing the government’s expert who stated Stephanie would have consumed all her income personally. The district court declined to deduct personal consumption from the restitution award.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Johnson to 36 months in prison and three years of supervised release, without imposing a fine due to her lack of financial resources. The court ordered restitution of $158,009, based on the government’s reduced request of $208,009 minus a $50,000 insurance settlement received by Kristi. The court found Kristi’s testimony about Stephanie’s income credible and relied on it, despite the defense expert’s criticism of the government’s expert for not applying a personal-consumption deduction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court erred in rejecting the personal-consumption deduction for a legally incorrect reason, as household contributions do not fall within “lost income” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). The appellate court vacated the restitution award and remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the personal-consumption deduction and the payment schedule. The appellate court also addressed the sealing of certain documents, granting the parties' request to redact specific private information and keep the district court’s statement of reasons under seal. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Pascual A. Ruiz Jr. was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of possession of ammunition by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, the government promised to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range, which was 51 months. At sentencing, the prosecutor recommended 51 months but also discussed Ruiz’s criminal history. The district court relied on Ruiz’s criminal history to depart upward and imposed a 70-month sentence. Ruiz appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by undermining its recommendation.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas accepted Ruiz’s guilty plea and calculated his offense level and criminal history, resulting in a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) suggested an upward departure might be warranted due to Ruiz’s extensive criminal history. At sentencing, the district court expressed concern about Ruiz’s criminal history and imposed a 70-month sentence, classifying it as an upward departure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Ruiz argued the government breached the plea agreement by emphasizing his criminal history at sentencing. The court assumed, without deciding, that a plain error occurred but found Ruiz failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged breach. The court noted the district court’s independent concern about Ruiz’s criminal history, expressed before the prosecutor’s remarks, and concluded the district court would have likely imposed the same sentence regardless. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the 70-month sentence. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

Marci Walkingstick Dixon, a Native American woman and member of the Cherokee Nation, worked at Northeastern State University (NSU) in the Information Technology Services Department. After being supervised by Dr. Richard Reif, she reported experiencing discriminatory comments and actions based on her race and sex. Following her complaint to NSU's Title IX officer, she faced increased hostility from Dr. Reif. In 2018, after a dispute over compensatory time and subsequent reprimand, she formally complained about a hostile work environment. NSU then began characterizing her time report as falsified and eventually terminated her employment, citing poor job performance and improper timekeeping.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of NSU and Dr. Reif on Dixon's claims of Title VII sex and race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and FMLA retaliation. The court found that Dixon failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and could not show that NSU's reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court also concluded that Dr. Reif was not Dixon's employer under the FMLA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment on Dixon's Title VII sex and race discrimination claims and her Title VII retaliation claim, finding that she had established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence of pretext. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Reif on the FMLA retaliation claim, agreeing with the lower court's application of the economic reality test to determine that Dr. Reif was not Dixon's employer under the FMLA. View "Dixon v. Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board" on Justia Law

Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. implemented a reduction-in-force (RIF) that resulted in the termination of 271 employees. Several of these former employees filed a collective action lawsuit against Spirit, alleging age discrimination. To succeed, they needed to demonstrate a pattern or practice of age discrimination. They presented documentary evidence and testimony to support their claims, while Spirit contended that the RIF aimed to eliminate underperformers regardless of age.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment in favor of Spirit, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a pattern or practice of age discrimination. The court found that the evidence did not support the claim that Spirit's actions were motivated by ageism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court examined the evidence, including lay testimony, documentary evidence, and expert opinions. The court found that the evidence, individually or collectively, did not support an inference of a standard operating procedure to eliminate older employees. The court noted that some evidence might suggest individual instances of age discrimination but did not establish a company-wide policy or practice.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding an unlawful pattern or practice of age discrimination. The court also addressed the exclusion of expert declarations and found no error in the district court's decisions. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that Spirit's RIF or refusal to rehire older workers was motivated by age discrimination. View "Raymond v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of hospice service providers in Oklahoma, sued Defendant Axxess Technology Solutions, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Axxess failed to properly process claims, resulting in non-payment for services. Axxess was served but mistakenly believed it had not been due to an employee error. Consequently, Axxess did not respond to the complaint, leading the district court to enter a default judgment against it. Axxess moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a contractual mediation requirement. The district court denied this motion, and Axxess did not appeal.Over six months later, Axxess filed a second motion to set aside the default judgment, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). The district court denied this motion on claim preclusion grounds, and Axxess timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision but not on claim preclusion grounds. Instead, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion because the arguments raised could have been presented in the first motion. The court noted that Axxess's delay in raising these arguments was sufficient reason to deny relief under Rule 60(b). The court also granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to properly allege diversity jurisdiction, concluding that there was complete diversity between the parties. View "Choice Hospice v. Axxess Technology Solutions" on Justia Law