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

Two boys from Grand Junction, Colorado, were sexually abused by Michael Tracy McFadden over several years. McFadden, who was distantly related to one boy (J.W.) and a close family friend to the other (K.W.), provided necessities and luxuries to the boys, ingratiating himself with their families. The boys frequently stayed at McFadden’s house, where he assaulted them during the night. McFadden also took the boys on interstate trucking trips, during which he continued the abuse.McFadden was initially convicted in Colorado state court on nineteen counts of child-sex abuse, but the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the charges due to a violation of his speedy-trial rights. Subsequently, a federal grand jury charged McFadden with five counts related to his sexual abuse of J.W. and K.W. across state lines. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado admitted a video recording of K.W.’s 2013 forensic interview under Rule 807, despite McFadden’s objections. The jury convicted McFadden on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent life sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed McFadden’s appeal, which argued that evidentiary errors and a mistake in his Guidelines calculation warranted a new trial and resentencing. The court found that the district court erred in admitting the 2013 forensic-interview video under Rule 807 but deemed the error harmless. The court also upheld the district court’s exclusion of an audio recording of K.W.’s 2018 interview and rejected McFadden’s claims of improper vouching by witnesses. Finally, the court affirmed the application of a two-level undue-influence enhancement to McFadden’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). The Tenth Circuit affirmed McFadden’s conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. McFadden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued multiple officers from the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and Grand Junction Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. The officers executed a search warrant for a stolen Sno-Cat at Plaintiff's property, which included a garage and an attached residence. Believing the Sno-Cat was in the garage, officers obtained a search warrant and returned with SWAT units. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they fired chemical munitions into the residence, causing significant property damage. The search revealed no humans, only a dog, and Plaintiff claimed over $50,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, granting qualified immunity to the defendants. The court relied on documents outside the complaint, including a search warrant, supporting affidavit, and an after-action report (AAR), despite Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which the district court also dismissed, again granting qualified immunity and considering the same external documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court erred by considering the AAR without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and allowing for discovery. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff plausibly alleged individual actions by each defendant and that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant by entering the residence, which could not house the Sno-Cat. The court also found that the officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by failing to knock and announce their presence and using excessive force without exigent circumstances. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cuervo v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

Omar Godinez, a minor at the time of his conviction, is serving a 32-years-to-life sentence in Colorado state prison for kidnapping and sexually assaulting two victims. After exhausting state appeals, he sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Graham v. Florida, which prohibits life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by minors without a meaningful opportunity for release based on maturity and rehabilitation.The state trial court rejected Godinez's interpretation of Graham, concluding that the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) allows the parole board to consider maturity and rehabilitation, even if not explicitly mandated. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence on different grounds, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Godinez then filed a habeas petition in the District of Colorado, which was denied. The district court agreed with the state trial court that the parole board could consider the Graham factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. They had previously certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court, which clarified that SOLSA permits consideration of maturity and requires consideration of rehabilitation. The Tenth Circuit denied Godinez's habeas petition, holding that he could not show that the Colorado courts unreasonably applied federal law. The court concluded that the parole board's ability to consider maturity and rehabilitation when Godinez becomes eligible for parole in 2034 meets the requirements set forth in Graham. The court also noted that any future failure by the parole board to adhere to constitutional requirements could be challenged at that time. View "Godinez v. Williams" on Justia Law

Arthur Aragon was indicted for unlawfully possessing an incendiary device, specifically a Molotov cocktail, which he threw onto his neighbor's property. This act was part of a series of harassments against his neighbors, including threats and property damage. Despite the Molotov cocktail causing a fireball, it did not result in significant damage or meet the threshold for felony arson under New Mexico law.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico applied a four-level sentencing enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court reasoned that Aragon's use of the Molotov cocktail had the potential to facilitate a felony offense, specifically arson, even though the actual damage did not meet the felony threshold. Aragon was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment, and he appealed the enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court misapplied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The enhancement requires either the use of a firearm to facilitate an actual felony offense or the possession of a firearm with the potential to facilitate a committed felony offense. The court clarified that the guideline does not apply to potential felony offenses that were not committed. Since Aragon did not commit felony arson, the enhancement was improperly applied. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Aragon" on Justia Law

Jeremy Harris filed a lawsuit against City Cycle Sales, Inc. (CCS) in Kansas state court, alleging negligence and a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) due to CCS's failure to repair the Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS) on his motorcycle. Harris was seriously injured when the ABS malfunctioned. He abandoned the KCPA claim before the case went to the jury, which resulted in a final judgment against him on all claims. Harris appealed the adverse judgment on the negligence claim but did not challenge the KCPA claim. After the appellate court reversed the negligence judgment and remanded for a new trial, Harris and CCS stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice. Harris then filed a new lawsuit in federal district court, again alleging negligence and KCPA violations, and won on both claims.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied CCS's motion to dismiss the KCPA claims, reasoning that the law-of-the-case doctrine and preclusion principles did not apply because there was no final judgment on the merits of the KCPA claims. The jury awarded Harris damages, finding CCS liable for both negligence and KCPA violations. CCS appealed, arguing that Harris was barred from raising the KCPA claim in federal court and that there was insufficient evidence to support the negligence claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment on the KCPA claim, holding that Harris was barred from raising the statutory claim in federal court due to his abandonment of the claim in the state trial and appellate courts. The court ruled that the federal district court was required to give full faith and credit to the Kansas proceedings, which had a preclusive effect on the KCPA claim. However, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the negligence claim, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that CCS's negligence caused Harris's injuries. View "Harris v. City Cycle Sales" on Justia Law

In 2016, Unitednet, Ltd., a UK company, entered into an agreement to purchase a fiber-optic telecommunications network from three foreign companies within the Tata Communications conglomerate. Steven Lucero, a New Mexico resident, allegedly conspired with three Tata companies to sabotage the deal so he could purchase the network through his New Mexico-based company, LatinGroup, LLC. After the deal fell apart, Unitednet and its director, Levi Russell, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico federal district court, asserting claims of tortious interference with a contract and related claims against Lucero, LatinGroup, and the Tata companies.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum for the litigation. The court found that foreign law applied to the claims and that the private and public interests favored dismissal. The court conditioned the dismissal on the defendants submitting to jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and waiving any statute-of-limitations defenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the United Kingdom was an adequate alternative forum and that foreign law governed the dispute. The court found that the district court had appropriately balanced the private and public interest factors, noting that the case had stronger ties to the United Kingdom, which had a greater interest in resolving the dispute. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for forum non conveniens. View "Unitednet v. Tata Communications America" on Justia Law

Julian Manzano was pulled over by Oklahoma City police on March 26, 2022, just twenty-five days after being released from a thirteen-year prison sentence. During the stop, officers smelled burnt marijuana and found a .45 caliber pistol and ammunition in his car. Manzano admitted ownership of the firearm. Due to a prior 2009 conviction for second-degree murder in Oklahoma, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and pled guilty.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Manzano, applying a higher base offense level based on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) which classified his prior second-degree murder conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Manzano objected, arguing that his prior conviction did not meet the criteria for a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. The district court disagreed and sentenced him to 27 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Oklahoma's second-degree murder statute, which includes homicides committed during the commission of any felony, does not categorically match the federal definition of "murder" under the Guidelines. The federal definition requires the underlying felony to be "dangerous," whereas Oklahoma law allows for potentially dangerous felonies to qualify. This broader scope means that Oklahoma second-degree murder criminalizes more conduct than the federal definition of "murder." Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing, finding that Manzano's prior conviction should not have been classified as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Manzano" on Justia Law

In 2013, Ronald Fossat, a coal miner, filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA). Fossat had worked in coal mines for 24 years, with 10 years underground and 14 years above ground. He suffered from severe respiratory issues and was on oxygen therapy. After filing his claim, he underwent medical evaluations, including those by Dr. Gagon (OWCP-sponsored) and Drs. Farney and Rosenberg (requested by his employer, Sunnyside Coal Company). The evaluations produced mixed results regarding the cause and extent of his respiratory impairment.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Fossat benefits in 2021, concluding that he was totally disabled based on arterial blood gas studies and medical opinions. Sunnyside appealed to the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Sunnyside then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for review, arguing that the agency’s interpretation of the BLBA was erroneous and that the ALJ’s medical merits analysis was flawed.The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and rejected Sunnyside’s arguments. The court held that Fossat’s employment qualified him for the rebuttable presumption under the BLBA, as he had worked for more than 15 years in an underground coal mine, including above-ground work at the same mine. The court also found that the ALJ correctly applied the burden of proof and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Fossat was totally disabled. The court further determined that any error in admitting a supplemental medical report was harmless, as the ALJ’s conclusions were supportable without it. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit denied Sunnyside’s petition for review. View "Sunnyside Coal Company v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted on 12 counts related to fraudulently obtaining federal funds intended for COVID-19 relief. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the district court erred by reading the jury instructions only at the outset of the presentation of evidence and not again after the close of evidence.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas had indicted the defendant on 19 counts, including bank fraud, false statements to a bank and the Small Business Administration, wire fraud, and money laundering. The indictment alleged that he obtained COVID-19 relief funds by making false representations regarding the workforce of three entities. During a pretrial conference, the district court decided to read the jury instructions before the presentation of evidence and provide jurors with individual copies of the instructions. The trial proceeded, and the court read all 40 primary instructions to the jury before any evidence was introduced. After the close of evidence, the court denied the defense's motion to reread eight specific instructions, allowing defense counsel to refer to them during closing arguments instead.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the defendant did not preserve his argument that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(c) required the court to instruct the jury after the close of evidence. The court applied plain-error review and determined that the defendant could not prevail because he did not show that any error was plain or that it affected the outcome of the proceeding. The court noted that the district court had provided jurors with written copies of the instructions and allowed defense counsel to refer to them during closing arguments. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Capps" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the allocation of attorneys' fees from a $1.51 billion settlement between Syngenta AG and numerous plaintiffs. The settlement arose after Syngenta failed to obtain regulatory approval for its genetically modified corn seeds to be imported into China, leading to significant financial losses for American corn farmers and producers. As part of the settlement, $503 million was allocated for attorneys' fees, which was divided into four pools: three common benefit pools and one for individually retained private attorneys (IRPAs). The IRPA pool was allocated $60 million.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially approved the allocation scheme and the modification of contingent-fee contracts, capping IRPA fees at approximately 10% of their clients' recovery. The Objecting Firms, including Hossley-Embry and Byrd/Shields, challenged this allocation and the modification of their fee contracts. They filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the settlement claims process was more complex than anticipated, requiring additional work. The district court denied these motions, and the Objecting Firms appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's allocation scheme and the modification of the contingent-fee contracts in In re Syngenta I. The current appeal focuses on the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, which adopted the special master's recommendations on the allocation of the $60 million within the IRPA pool. The Objecting Firms argued that the district court's allocation was insufficient and that their due process rights were violated.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, concluding that the Objecting Firms failed to raise any arguments within the scope of the appeal, which was limited to the allocation of the IRPA pool itself. The court also dismissed the contingent cross-appeal by MDL Co-Lead Counsel as moot, given the affirmation of the district court's order. View "In re: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION" on Justia Law