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

The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident in Oklahoma with his girlfriend as a passenger. After socializing with friends and drinking alcohol, and possibly vaping marijuana, he drove his motorcycle at or below the speed limit but lost control on a dark, shoulderless road, resulting in a crash that caused his girlfriend’s death. At the scene, law enforcement observed signs of possible intoxication, such as the odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes, and administered sobriety tests. The defendant’s blood sample, taken shortly after the accident, revealed a blood alcohol level below the legal limit and the presence of other substances, but the forensic toxicologist could not definitively state whether he was impaired at the time.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted the defendant for involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country, predicated on violating the Oklahoma misdemeanor DUI statute for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and other intoxicants. At trial, the jury was instructed using the Oklahoma statutory language but, during deliberations, asked the court to clarify whether “under the influence” required mere presence of substances or actual impairment rendering the defendant incapable of safe driving. The district court declined to clarify, instructing the jury to rely on the given instructions. Shortly after, the jury convicted the defendant, and the court imposed a sentence of forty-one months in prison.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a clarifying supplemental instruction in response to the jury’s explicit legal uncertainty. The appellate court found this error was not harmless because it likely affected the verdict, given the jury’s demonstrated confusion about the correct legal standard. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kirby" on Justia Law

A Black male employee worked as a sales representative for an insurance company, where he was required to obtain and maintain licenses to sell insurance in various states, including New York. He applied for a New York license but failed to respond to requests for information from the New York Department of Financial Services, resulting in the denial of his application. The denial was not timely communicated to the employer due to an internal error, which eventually led to corrective actions by the company. After the denial was discovered, the employee was informed that his continued employment in sales required the New York license. He was offered a chance to transfer to another department but was not selected for that position. Separately, the employee requested and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave, but he missed work for an extended period beyond what was approved. He was ultimately terminated for failing to obtain the required New York license and for not informing the company about the denial.The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging retaliation under the FMLA and ADAAA, and race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. It found the employee had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext to support his retaliation claims, concluding the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for termination was not shown to be false or a pretext for unlawful conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed that the district court erred in its analysis of the prima facie case of race discrimination but found this error harmless. The appellate court held the employee failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext regarding both his discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims. View "Plump v. Government Employees Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a series of crimes that began when he picked up an acquaintance from a motel and, instead of taking her home, brought her to his house where he and his girlfriend assaulted her. During the assault, the defendant’s girlfriend held the victim at gunpoint with the defendant’s shotgun. The defendant subsequently forced the victim into the trunk of his car, drove her to the motel, and confronted another individual in a motel room, threatening him and stealing his possessions as well as his car keys. The defendant and his girlfriend then left the scene, with the stolen items and the shotgun in the original car, and the defendant driving the stolen car. During their flight, the victim managed to escape, and law enforcement later apprehended the defendant and recovered both the shotgun and the stolen property.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a jury trial in which the defendant was convicted of several offenses, including carjacking, robbery in Indian Country, and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The defendant moved for acquittal on the § 924(c)(1)(A) count, arguing insufficient evidence that he carried a firearm during the robberies because he did not have the shotgun on his person during the “taking” phase of the offenses. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found the defendant guilty, specifying that he carried (but did not use) the firearm during the robberies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. The court held that “carrying” under § 924(c)(1)(A) includes constructive possession and transportation of a firearm during the commission or flight from a continuing offense such as robbery. The court concluded that evidence supported the jury’s verdict, as the defendant constructively carried the firearm during his escape from the robberies. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. McHenry" on Justia Law

A man living in Muskogee, Oklahoma, fatally shot his neighbor after developing the belief that the neighbor had harmed his daughter, despite no history of conflict or any evidence supporting this belief. The shooter had been prescribed unusually high doses of Adderall, and a Bureau of Prisons psychologist concluded that he suffered from amphetamine-induced psychosis at the time of the shooting. At trial, the defendant admitted to the killing but raised the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication due to his prescribed medication, asserting he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Both parties presented expert and lay testimony regarding the defendant’s mental state and drug use, including the possibility of methamphetamine use.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over a jury trial. The court instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication but included categorical disqualifiers: the jury was told that the defense could not apply if the defendant had knowledge of Adderall’s possible intoxicating effects, or if he had used illegal drugs while on Adderall. The court also denied the defense’s request for an instruction on involuntary manslaughter based on “imperfect defense of another.” The jury rejected the involuntary intoxication defense and convicted the defendant of first-degree murder and related firearm offenses.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s jury instructions on involuntary intoxication were legally erroneous. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit found it was improper to instruct the jury that any knowledge of possible intoxicating effects, or any illegal drug use while taking Adderall, categorically barred the defense. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the errors were not harmless. The Tenth Circuit also concluded the district court erred by failing to give the requested imperfect defense of another instruction, which may be relevant at retrial. View "United States v. Rainford" on Justia Law

A detainee, Kongchi Justin Thao, died by suicide while being temporarily held at a county jail facility in Oklahoma during a transfer to a federal facility in California. Upon arrival, Mr. Thao was placed in a holding pod for short-term inmates. After attempting to leave the pod, he was restrained, handcuffed, and, while being transported, was tased by an officer before being isolated in a shower cell (Cell 126) with no camera. Over the next hour and a half, Mr. Thao repeatedly cried out for help, expressed suicidal ideation, and asked to be killed. Officers told him to be quiet but did not intervene further. Mr. Thao was later found hanging in the cell and died as a result.The decedent’s estate, through his brother as special administrator, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority (GCCJA), alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to GCCJA on both claims. The district court found that the facility had not been deliberately indifferent, reasoning there was evidence of training for officers on suicide risks and inmate supervision, and that the GCCJA’s written use-of-force policy was not plainly unconstitutional.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment for GCCJA regarding the excessive force claim, holding that the written taser policy was facially constitutional and that liability could not attach to the county for an officer’s violation of that policy. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the deliberate indifference claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether officers had adequate training to detect suicide risks in inmates like Mr. Thao. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the inadequate medical care claim. View "Thao v. Grady County Criminal Justice Authority" on Justia Law

The defendant, Eric Honors, was accused of sexually assaulting his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, B.J., both in the sleeper cab of his semi-truck outside their Wichita, Kansas home and during a subsequent drive from Kansas to Texas. Throughout these events, Honors held B.J. captive, repeatedly assaulted her, and made various videos documenting the abuse. Three such videos were recovered by investigators, all recorded in Kansas; other videos described by B.J. that were made in Oklahoma and Texas were not recovered.Honors was indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on two counts: transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and production of child pornography. At trial, the jury convicted him on both counts. The district court sentenced Honors to a total of sixty years in prison and ten years of supervised release. It also imposed a special condition prohibiting Honors from contacting B.J. or her family, including his wife and four biological children, during supervised release. Initially, the district court declined to extend the no-contact order to his prison term, reasoning it lacked authority, but later reconvened and imposed the order during incarceration as a civil injunction.Honors appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, raising three issues: (1) whether the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment by omitting language limiting the offense to Kansas, (2) whether the district court had authority to impose the no-contact order during incarceration, and (3) whether there was sufficient justification for prohibiting contact with his wife and children during supervised release. The Tenth Circuit held that any error regarding the jury instructions was not plain, affirmed the conviction on Count 2, vacated the custodial no-contact order in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction, and vacated the supervised release condition prohibiting contact with his wife and biological children, finding no compelling justification. View "United States v. Honors" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting electoral transparency operates a website that republishes voter registration data collected from state agencies. The group obtained New Mexico’s voter data through a third party and published it online, including information such as names, addresses, party affiliation, and voting history. After the website highlighted discrepancies in the state’s voter rolls, New Mexico’s Secretary of State publicly questioned the group’s motives and the lawfulness of its actions. The Secretary referred the group to the Attorney General for criminal investigation under state statutes that restrict the use and sharing of voter data. The group’s subsequent requests for updated voter data were denied.After the state’s refusal, the organization filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that New Mexico’s restrictions were preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing prosecution, which was later stayed by the Tenth Circuit. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that the NVRA preempted New Mexico’s restrictions and enjoined criminal prosecution. The court rejected most of the group’s remaining constitutional claims but, following a bench trial, held that the state engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing further data requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the NVRA preempts New Mexico’s restrictions on the use and sharing of voter data, holding that state laws that prevent broad public disclosure of voter data conflict with the NVRA’s requirements. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the First Amendment claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Voter Reference Foundation v. Torrez" on Justia Law

In 2003, the defendant was convicted by a jury of armed bank robbery in federal court. At sentencing, the government sought a mandatory life sentence under the federal “three strikes” law, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), which requires a life sentence for certain repeat offenders convicted of “serious violent felonies.” The government identified five prior convictions it argued qualified as “serious violent felonies.” The district court imposed a life sentence, finding the defendant had three qualifying strikes, but did not specify which prior convictions or which statutory definitions it relied upon.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The defendant’s first motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and that denial was affirmed on appeal. In 2020, the Tenth Circuit authorized the defendant to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, based on recent Supreme Court decisions finding similar statutory “residual clauses” unconstitutionally vague. The defendant argued that his life sentence was imposed under the residual clause of § 3559(c), which he claimed was unconstitutional.Reviewing the district court’s denial of relief de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause to enhance his sentence. The court found that, at the time of sentencing, the legal environment permitted the use of a circumstance-specific approach, allowing the defendant’s California robbery conviction to qualify as a strike under the enumerated clause. As a result, the defendant did not meet the burden required for relief under § 2255. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A man was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor that occurred in a home on the Choctaw Nation reservation in Oklahoma. The victim was a six-year-old boy, and the defendant, who had recently moved in with his stepdaughter, was alleged to have committed the offense within two days of his arrival. The prosecution charged the defendant under federal law, which required proof that the victim was an Indian and the defendant was a non-Indian.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government presented testimony from the defendant’s stepdaughter and three law enforcement officers, as well as driver’s license records, to establish that the defendant was not an Indian. The stepdaughter testified she did not know of any tribal membership or Indian identity for the defendant. Law enforcement witnesses stated the defendant did not identify as Native American and that inquiries with five major Oklahoma tribes yielded no information about his tribal status. The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a non-Indian. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The court held that the government failed to meet its burden, finding the evidence presented was too speculative and insufficient to establish the defendant’s non-Indian status. The Tenth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Hebert" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully several decades ago. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging that he was inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act due to his illegal entry. The petitioner admitted the allegations and sought cancellation of removal, arguing that he met the statutory requirements, including continuous residence and good moral character for the preceding ten years. He also requested voluntary departure as an alternative form of relief.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application for cancellation of removal, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated good moral character for the required ten-year period. The IJ acknowledged positive evidence regarding the petitioner’s family and work history but emphasized his history of alcohol abuse and criminal conduct, specifically noting a 2017 DUI conviction that was his fourth such offense, with the previous three occurring in 1995 and 1996. The IJ concluded that the 2017 conviction was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of recidivist behavior. The IJ granted voluntary departure. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ that the 2017 DUI conviction reflected recidivism and outweighed positive equities. The BIA also rejected the petitioner’s due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision de novo, focusing on whether the BIA improperly considered DUI convictions outside the ten-year statutory period for good moral character. The court held that the BIA properly considered the recidivist nature of the petitioner’s 2017 DUI conviction, even though the earlier convictions occurred outside the statutory period, because recidivism aggravates the seriousness of the most recent offense. The court denied the petition for review. View "Luna-Corona v. Bondi" on Justia Law