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

Coti D’Shayne Davis pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing to allow Davis to allocute and to make specific findings concerning a special condition of supervised release. On remand, the district court allowed Davis to allocute, struck the special condition, but again imposed the same sentence.Davis appealed, challenging a two-point addition to his criminal history score based on a misdemeanor conviction for consumption of liquor by a minor. The district court had overruled Davis’s objection, construing it as an argument that the conviction should be considered a juvenile status offense and thus not counted in his criminal history score. The court concluded that the conviction did not fit the definition of a juvenile status offense because Davis was over 18 when it occurred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis’s underage drinking conviction, which he received at 20 years old, is “similar to” a juvenile status offense under the guidelines. The court reasoned that the elements of the offense and the conduct underlying the conviction were similar to a juvenile status offense, and that common sense dictated that the conviction should not be included in Davis’s criminal history score. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate Davis’s sentence and resentence him without the two-point addition. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Ricky Koel sought emergency care at Citizens Medical Center in Colby, Kansas, after sustaining serious injuries to his right eye. He was evaluated by a triage nurse, a physician assistant, and Dr. Daniel Kuhlman, who suspected a possible globe rupture. Dr. Sam Funk, an optometrist, also examined Koel but did not confirm an open globe rupture. A CT scan indicated a possible globe rupture, but Dr. Kuhlman did not share these results with the specialists. Koel was discharged with instructions to see an ophthalmologist the next morning. Despite undergoing emergency surgery the following day, Koel ultimately lost vision in his injured eye.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Koel's EMTALA claim, concluding that Citizens Medical Center did not violate the Act's requirements. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koel's state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Citizens Medical Center provided an appropriate medical screening examination within its capabilities and adhered to its own standard procedures, as required by EMTALA. The court also found that Citizens did not have actual knowledge of Koel's specific emergency medical condition (an occult globe rupture) and therefore was not obligated to stabilize him for that condition before discharge. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Citizens Medical Center. View "Koel v. Citizens Medical Center" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over liability-insurance coverage between the plaintiffs, New Hampshire Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and the defendants, TSG Ski & Golf, LLC, The Peaks Owners Association, Inc., Peaks Hotel, LLC, and H. Curtis Brunjes. The insurance policies in question included exclusions for personal and advertising injury arising from the publication of material known to be false by the insureds. The underlying lawsuit involved claims that the defendants knowingly published false statements in a debt-collection letter, causing financial and reputational harm to the plaintiffs in that case.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies, concluding that the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions in the policies precluded coverage. The court found that the allegations in the underlying complaint fell entirely within the exclusions, and thus, the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants. The court also granted summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith, as these claims were contingent on the existence of coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions applied because the underlying complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly published false statements. The court also found that the evidence at trial established that the defendants knew the statements in the debt-collection letter were false when published, thus precluding indemnity coverage. Consequently, the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify, and the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith were properly dismissed. View "New Hampshire Insurance Company v. TSG Ski & Golf" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff from Doña Ana County, New Mexico, fatally shot Diego Eguino-Alcala during a standoff. The personal representative of Eguino-Alcala’s estate (the “Estate”) filed a lawsuit alleging excessive force and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Deputy Sheriff Arturo Ortega, awarding him qualified immunity and dismissing the federal claims against him and the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County. The Estate appealed.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found that Deputy Ortega’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court emphasized that Eguino-Alcala’s sudden movement, which appeared to be a draw-like motion, caused Deputy Ortega to reasonably perceive an immediate and lethal threat. The court also concluded that Deputy Ortega’s actions did not violate clearly established law, thus granting him qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Deputy Ortega’s use of deadly force was reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that Eguino-Alcala’s failure to comply with commands, his sudden movement, and the information that he might be armed justified the deputy’s actions. The court concluded that the Estate failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the use of force. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit upheld the summary judgment and the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. View "Alcala v. Ortega" on Justia Law

Defendant Ted Joseph Valdez was involved in a conspiracy to transport two undocumented immigrants within the United States. After a car accident, he moved to Mexico and later accepted an offer to drive the immigrants for $1,000. He was followed by a border patrol agent for twenty-seven miles, during which he exhibited erratic driving behavior. Valdez confessed to knowing the immigrants were in the country illegally.Valdez pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiring to transport aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico calculated his base offense level as 12, with reductions for his minor role and acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 8 and a criminal history category of II. This recommended a sentencing range of four to ten months. Valdez requested a time-served sentence of six months, while the government sought a high-end sentence. The district court sentenced Valdez to twenty-four months, citing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and his criminal history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reiterated that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The district court's decision to impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range was based on Valdez's criminal history, the need for deterrence, and public safety concerns. The Tenth Circuit found that the district court provided a thorough explanation for the upward variance, considering all relevant factors and justifying the sentence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the sentence was substantively reasonable and within the bounds of permissible choice. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

Amelia Baca, a 75-year-old woman with dementia, was fatally shot by Officer Jared Cosper in Las Cruces, New Mexico. On April 16, 2022, Baca's daughter called 911, reporting that Baca had become aggressive and threatened to kill her and her daughter. Officer Cosper, who was nearby, responded to the call. Upon arrival, he saw Baca holding knives and ordered her to drop them. Baca did not comply and took two slow steps towards Cosper, who then shot her twice, resulting in her death.The Estate of Amelia Baca filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, alleging that Officer Cosper used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cosper on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that the Estate had not raised a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Cosper's perception of an immediate threat.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Estate, the Tenth Circuit determined that a reasonable jury could find a Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation. The court also held that such a violation was clearly established under controlling law at the time of the shooting. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Baca v. Cosper" on Justia Law

Petitioners Jason Fabrizius and Fabrizius Livestock LLC sought review of a USDA Judicial Officer's order that denied their appeal of two USDA ALJ orders. The ALJ found Fabrizius Livestock responsible for ensuring animals transported interstate had required documentation and issued a $210,000 fine against the company. Fabrizius Livestock, a Colorado corporation dealing in horses, often sold horses intended for slaughter and kept them in conditions that made them vulnerable to disease. The company sold horses across state lines without the necessary documentation, including ICVIs and EIA test results.The ALJ found Fabrizius liable for violations of the CTESA and AHPA regulations, including transporting horses without owner/shipper certificates and selling horses without ICVIs. The ALJ imposed a $210,000 fine, which included penalties for each violation. Fabrizius appealed to a USDA Judicial Officer, arguing that the regulation was unconstitutionally vague, they were not among the "persons responsible," they lacked adequate notice, the fine was arbitrary and capricious, and the fine was excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The Judicial Officer rejected these arguments and affirmed the ALJ's orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague and provided adequate notice. The court found that the term "persons responsible" reasonably included sellers like Fabrizius. The court also held that the $200,000 fine for the AHPA violations was not arbitrary or capricious, as the Judicial Officer had considered all relevant factors. Finally, the court found that the fine was not excessive under the Eighth Amendment, given the gravity of the violations and the potential harm to the equine industry. The court denied the petition for review. View "Fabrizius v. United States Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

David Leroy Earls was convicted by a jury on three counts of engaging in a sex act with a person incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct, specifically the intellectually disabled daughter of his long-time girlfriend. Earls admitted to having sex with the victim, C.P., and the primary questions at trial were whether C.P. was incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct and whether Earls knew of her incapacity. The jury resolved both questions against Earls.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Earls to 140 months in prison. Earls appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the jury's findings and alleging trial errors. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, including testimony about C.P.'s intellectual disability and mental illnesses, and Earls' own admissions. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of expert testimony and rejected Earls' claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.However, the Government conceded that the district court erred in calculating Earls' sentence by incorrectly adding two criminal history points. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Earls' convictions but remanded the case to the district court to vacate Earls' sentence and resentence him consistent with their opinion. View "United States v. Earls" on Justia Law

Jason Waterhouse, high on methamphetamine, barricaded himself in his sister's basement and started a fire when Lakewood Police Department officers arrived. After an hour of failed negotiations, seven officers entered the basement to extract him and locate the fire. Sergeant Marc Direzza, providing lethal cover, was among the last two officers in the basement when Waterhouse burst out of a bedroom and rushed towards them. Another officer fired a beanbag shotgun, and Direzza fired his pistol, killing Waterhouse with a shot to the back.The Estate of Jason Waterhouse filed a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Direzza, concluding he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Direzza's use of lethal force was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law. The district court also dismissed a state-law wrongful-death claim without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that Sergeant Direzza was entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that Direzza's use of lethal force was objectively reasonable given the dangerous circumstances, including the fire and smoke, and the perceived threat posed by Waterhouse. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful-death claim, as it was contingent on the outcome of the excessive-force claim. View "Estate of Jason Waterhouse v. Direzza" on Justia Law

Atlantic Richfield Company acquired a mine in Colorado, which had been leaking sulfuric acid into a nearby river. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intervened in 2000 to stabilize the situation, but the leaks persisted. In 2011, the EPA ordered Atlantic Richfield to build water treatment systems, and in 2021, Atlantic Richfield settled with the EPA, agreeing to continue the cleanup and pay $400,000. Six months later, Atlantic Richfield sued NL Industries, Inc. and NL Environmental Management Services for contribution towards the cleanup costs.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted partial summary judgment in favor of the NL entities, ruling that Atlantic Richfield's claims to recoup part of the cleanup costs were time-barred. Atlantic Richfield appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and determined that the action was one for contribution, not cost recovery. The court noted that the Supreme Court has clarified that cost recovery and contribution are distinct actions. The court found that Atlantic Richfield's claim fell under the contribution category because it sought to recoup expenses following a settlement with the EPA, which required Atlantic Richfield to perform a removal action at the site.The Tenth Circuit concluded that the statute of limitations for contribution actions under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(3) should apply, even though the specific types of claims listed in that section did not include Atlantic Richfield's situation. The court held that the three-year limitations period for contribution actions applied, making Atlantic Richfield's lawsuit timely. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Atlantic Richfield Co. v. NL Industries" on Justia Law