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

Davidson Oil Company entered into a fixed-price requirements contract with the City of Albuquerque to supply all of the city's fuel needs for a year. Shortly after the contract was signed, fuel market prices dropped significantly. The city requested a price reduction, which Davidson Oil refused, citing potential losses due to hedge contracts it had entered into to protect against market fluctuations. The city then terminated the contract using a termination for convenience clause, prompting Davidson Oil to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment in favor of Davidson Oil, awarding damages for the value of the hedge contracts. The court found that while the city did not breach the explicit terms of the contract, it violated an implied covenant by terminating the contract in bad faith to secure a better bargain elsewhere.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the City of Albuquerque breached the contract by exercising the termination for convenience clause solely to obtain a better deal from another supplier. The court emphasized that such an action violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the contract. The court also upheld the district court's award of damages, including the hedge contract losses, as incidental damages under the Uniform Commercial Code, finding them to be commercially reasonable and directly resulting from the breach. View "Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

In May 2018, Brian Estrada, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), attempted to escape from a courthouse while shackled. He was shot three times by Jacob Smart, a CDOC officer. Estrada filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smart, concluding that Estrada had failed to exhaust all available CDOC administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Estrada did not follow CDOC’s three-step grievance process regarding the shooting incident. Estrada argued that the courthouse was not a CDOC prison, and thus, the PLRA did not apply to his case. The district court disagreed, ruling that the PLRA and CDOC’s grievance procedures applied to the shooting of a CDOC inmate by a CDOC officer, regardless of the location.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies broadly to all inmate suits about prison life, including incidents occurring outside the prison walls, such as the courthouse shooting. The court also determined that CDOC’s grievance procedures were applicable to the incident, as they cover actions by employees and incidents affecting inmates, even outside the facility. The court concluded that Estrada’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies barred his § 1983 claim. View "Estrada v. Smart" on Justia Law

David Lesh, a social media content creator and owner of an outdoor apparel brand, posted photos on Instagram of himself snowmobiling at Keystone Resort, Colorado, during its closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States charged him with using an over-snow vehicle on National Forest Service (NFS) land off a designated route and conducting unauthorized work activity on NFS land. A magistrate judge convicted him of both counts after a bench trial.The magistrate judge found Lesh guilty of using an over-snow vehicle on NFS land off a designated route, taking judicial notice of a publicly available map indicating that Keystone Resort was not designated for snowmobile use. Lesh's argument that the map's undated nature failed to provide sufficient notice was not preserved for appeal. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Lesh's conviction for using an over-snow vehicle on NFS land off a designated route, finding that Lesh had waived his challenge to the judicial notice of the map. However, the court reversed his conviction for unauthorized work activity under 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c). The court held that the regulation was impermissibly vague as applied to Lesh's conduct, as it did not provide fair warning that posting images on social media could constitute a federal crime. The court also found insufficient evidence to prove that Lesh's primary purpose in posting the photos was to sell goods or services, as required by the regulation. The court concluded that Lesh was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as the maximum penalty he faced did not exceed six months of imprisonment. View "United States v. Lesh" on Justia Law

The case involves a congressional program that awards grants for family-planning projects, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) setting eligibility requirements. Oklahoma, a grant recipient, expressed concerns about these requirements, citing state laws prohibiting counseling and referrals for abortions. HHS proposed that Oklahoma provide neutral information about family-planning options, including abortion, through a national call-in number. Oklahoma rejected this proposal, leading HHS to terminate the grant. Oklahoma challenged the termination and sought a preliminary injunction.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Oklahoma's motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that Oklahoma was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims. Oklahoma then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Oklahoma argued that it would likely succeed on the merits for three reasons: (1) Congress's spending power did not allow it to delegate eligibility requirements to HHS, (2) HHS's requirements violated the Weldon Amendment, and (3) HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments, holding that:1. The spending power allowed Congress to delegate eligibility requirements to HHS, and Title X was unambiguous in conditioning eligibility on satisfaction of HHS's requirements. 2. The Weldon Amendment, which prohibits discrimination against health-care entities for declining to provide referrals for abortions, was not violated because HHS's proposal to use a national call-in number did not constitute a referral for the purpose of an abortion. 3. HHS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating Oklahoma's grant, as the eligibility requirements fell within HHS's statutory authority, and Oklahoma did not demonstrate a likely violation of HHS's regulations.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, concluding that Oklahoma had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. View "State of Oklahoma v. HHS" on Justia Law

Feng Tao, a tenured professor at the University of Kansas (KU), was involved in federally funded research while secretly developing a relationship with Fuzhou University in China. Tao was charged with ten federal crimes, including making false statements and wire fraud. A jury convicted him of making a materially false statement to his employer, KU, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), by failing to disclose his relationship with Fuzhou University on an institutional-responsibilities form.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially denied Tao's motions to dismiss the indictment. At trial, the jury found Tao guilty on three wire-fraud counts and one false-statement count but acquitted him on the other four counts. Post-trial, the district court acquitted Tao on the wire-fraud counts, leaving only the false-statement conviction. Tao was sentenced to time served and two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the government provided insufficient evidence to prove that Tao's false statement was material to any decision by the Department of Energy (DOE) or the National Science Foundation (NSF). The court noted that the funding decisions by these agencies were made before Tao submitted the false form, and no proposals were pending at the time. Additionally, the court found no evidence that Tao's relationship with Fuzhou University created a disclosable financial interest under the NSF's conflict policy. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed Tao's conviction and remanded the case for the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Tao" on Justia Law

A juvenile male, B.N.M., was accused of participating in the murder of his girlfriend’s parents when he was fifteen years old. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma transferred him to adult status, allowing him to be prosecuted as an adult. B.N.M. challenged this decision, arguing that the district court made errors in its analysis and that transferring him for adult prosecution was unconstitutional due to the severe penalties for first-degree murder.The district court's decision was based on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which outlines factors to consider when deciding whether to transfer a juvenile for adult prosecution. The magistrate judge found that the nature of the offense and the availability of programs to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems weighed in favor of transfer. The magistrate judge noted that if B.N.M. were adjudicated as a juvenile, he would be released at twenty-one, and there was a low likelihood of sufficient rehabilitation by that age. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, despite B.N.M.'s objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. B.N.M. argued that the district court erred by misattributing testimony from the government’s expert to his expert and by not properly considering his role as a follower in the crimes. He also argued that the district court improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding the availability of community programs for his rehabilitation. The Tenth Circuit found that the misattribution of testimony did not affect the outcome and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the factors. The court also held that B.N.M.'s constitutional argument was not ripe for review. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to transfer B.N.M. for adult prosecution. View "United States v. B.N.M." on Justia Law

Dr. Anthony Tufaro, a former Chief of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Professor of Medicine at the University of Oklahoma (OU), filed a lawsuit against OU and three of its doctors after his contract was not renewed. Tufaro alleged that his contract was not renewed because he had exposed various discrepancies and misconduct within OU’s Medical and Dental Colleges. His claims included wrongful termination, First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of property and liberty, breach of contract, and violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court. In the federal court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed all the § 1983 claims against OU and the individual defendants in their official capacities, as they were not considered "persons" under § 1983. The court also dismissed the breach of contract claim against OU, as it found that OU had followed the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook. However, Tufaro's Burk tort claim against OU survived the motion to dismiss.After discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that Tufaro's complaints fell outside the scope of the First Amendment because they were made during his employment as part of his official duties. The court also held that Tufaro failed to demonstrate he was an "at-will" employee, an essential element of the Burk tort claim. Following the entry of summary judgment on all remaining claims, the district court entered final judgment, ending Tufaro’s case. Tufaro appealed several of the district court's rulings. View "Tufaro v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The case involves Alexander Sweet, who initiated online communications with a 15-year-old girl, M.L.C., when he was 26. Over time, their relationship escalated to include the exchange of sexually explicit photos, sexual activities over video chat, and eventually, an in-person intimate relationship. Sweet was arrested by the FBI while on the run with M.L.C., with whom he had attempted to get married. He was charged, tried, and convicted on seven counts, including coercion and enticement of a minor, production of child pornography, receipt and distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment for coercion and enticement of a minor, 30 years each for four counts of production of child pornography, 20 years for receipt and distribution of child pornography, and 10 years for possession of child pornography.Sweet appealed his conviction, arguing that the enticement charge in the indictment was insufficient because it did not provide adequate notice of the facts underlying the charged crime. He also claimed that the prosecution committed misconduct by making improper comments during closing arguments that prejudiced him. Lastly, Sweet argued that the cumulative error doctrine should be applied to grant him a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the indictment was not insufficient and that the prosecution's comments during closing arguments did not constitute misconduct. The court also rejected Sweet's argument for a new trial based on the cumulative error doctrine, as Sweet failed to establish any error. View "United States v. Sweet" on Justia Law

The case involves a civil rights suit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Peatinna Biggs, an intellectually disabled prisoner, against Sedgwick County, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Hanna in his individual and official capacities. Biggs alleged that Sheriff Hanna sexually assaulted her while transporting her between county jails. The district court dismissed the complaint against the County and the Sheriff’s Department, reasoning that the County could only be liable if the challenged conduct had been taken pursuant to a policy adopted by the official or officials, and Hanna’s actions were not pursuant to Department policies, but in direct contravention of them. Hanna was then found liable by a jury in his individual capacity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Sheriff Hanna’s actions fell within the scope of his policymaking authority regarding the custody and care of prisoners and subjected the municipal defendants to liability. The court reasoned that when an official takes action over which he or she has final policymaking authority, the policymaker is the municipality, so it is fair to impose liability on that entity for that action. The court concluded that given that Hanna raped a prisoner in his custody while transporting the prisoner to another jail, that requirement was undoubtedly satisfied. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Whitson v. Hanna" on Justia Law

In February 2021, Salvador Salas, Jr. was accused of giving methamphetamine to a 13-year-old girl, sexually abusing her, and photographing the incident. The police obtained a warrant to search Salas's home and vehicle for drugs and related evidence. During the search, they seized Salas's iPhone and a hard drive. Suspecting Salas of producing or possessing child pornography, the officers obtained a second warrant to search for such evidence. They seized a laptop and another hard drive from Salas's residence. A digital forensic analyst found child pornography on Salas's iPhone and on the laptop and hard drive. Salas was charged with six federal counts of possessing and producing child pornography.Salas argued that the second warrant lacked probable cause and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He also argued that the child pornography on his iPhone, seized under the first warrant, would not have been inevitably discovered because the first warrant only authorized the seizure, not the search, of his iPhone. The district court agreed that the second warrant lacked probable cause but declined to suppress the child pornography evidence. It found that the first warrant allowed for both the seizure and search of Salas's iPhone and therefore child pornography would have been inevitably discovered by the officers as part of their investigation into Salas's drug activities. Salas was convicted on all counts and appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the first warrant was sufficiently particular to justify a search of Salas's iPhone and the search would have been conducted reasonably. The court also held that the child pornography on Salas's iPhone would have been inevitably discovered because the first warrant allowed for both the seizure and search of Salas's iPhone. The court concluded that Salas's child pornography would not have indefinitely stayed hidden behind his iPhone's locked passcode. It would have inevitably been discovered. View "U.S. v. Salas" on Justia Law