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

Petitioner Victor Zarate-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Zarate pleaded guilty to knowing or reckless child abuse in violation of Colorado law. Several years later, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled. Zarate conceded removability and filed an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application, concluding that Zarate was ineligible for cancellation under section 1229b(b)(l)(C) because his state child abuse conviction constituted “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination and dismissed Zarate’s appeal. Challenging the Board's decisions, Zarate argued: (1) the BIA’s most recent interpretations of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) were not entitled to deference; and (2) his state conviction was not a categorical match to a “crime of child abuse” as defined by the Board. The Tenth Circuit rejected both arguments and affirmed the Board. View "Zarate-Alvarez v. Garland" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was required to conduct an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it re-opened an area that it had temporarily closed to off-highway vehicles (OHVs) pursuant to its authority under 43 C.F.R. section 8341.2(a). In 2006, the BLM closed a portion of the Factory Butte area in Utah to OHVs due to their adverse effects on the endangered Wright fishhook cactus. The BLM lifted that closure order in 2019 and re-opened the area to OHV use, but did not perform any kind of environmental analysis under NEPA before doing so. Plaintiffs filed suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, alleging violations of NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court disagreed with Plaintiffs' contention and dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Natural Resources Defense v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Joan Unrein became legally blind and could no longer drive herself to work, a 120 mile round trip. She asked her employer, Colorado Plains Medical Center, to allow her to work a flexible schedule dependent on her ability to secure rides. The Medical Center permitted this arrangement for a while, but it became a problem because Unrein’s physical presence at the hospital was unpredictable. The flexible schedule arrangement ended in 2016, and was never reinstated. After Unrein was terminated, she sued the Medical Center for failure to accommodate her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Medical Center because it concluded Unrein’s accommodation request was unreasonable since a physical presence at the hospital on a set and predictable schedule was an essential job function of her position. Unrein appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Unrein’s physical presence at the hospital on a set and predictable schedule was essential to her job, and the ADA did not require an employer to accommodate employees’ non-work related barriers created by personal lifestyle choices. View "Unrein v. PHC-Fort Morgan" on Justia Law

The government appealed a district-court order granting Defendant Gabriel Trujillo’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during an inventory search of his vehicle following his arrest for failing to pull over in response to a police command. When officers ultimately made contact with Defendant, they learned Defendant was wearing a bulletproof vest and had handguns in the car for protection because "friends of his ex-girlfriend had made threats against his life." Disbelieving Defendant’s explanation for why he had failed to pull over earlier, the arresting officer decided to arrest him. Consistent with the policy of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), the officer also determined that the car should have been impounded and towed. The officer testified he thought it would be dangerous to leave the vehicle where it was, both because its location presented a danger to other drivers, and because of the risk that someone would remove the firearms - particularly because there was a high incidence of auto burglaries and thefts in the area. When the vehicle was searched, along with the firearms, a small backpack locked with a luggage lock was in the passenger compartment, containing a white crystalline substance believed to be methamphetamine. Defendant was indicted on charges of: (1) possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine; and (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Defendant argued that the BCSO's impoundment policy was itself unreasonable because there was no community-caretaker basis for impoundment, and the officer failed to consider alternatives to towing. After review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit held that the search was justified as an exercise of law-enforcement community-caretaker functions, as described in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), and Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). The district court was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

In 2015, Michael and Sonja Saltman sold a vacant lot in Park City, Utah, to Curt Marcantel. Marcantel pushed to close the deal quickly, but at the time of the sale, the Saltmans knew something that Marcantel didn’t: a ten-foot wide sewer easement (including a sewer pipe within it) ran under a portion of the property, rendering infeasible Marcantel's plans to redevelop the property. The Saltmans did not tell Marcantel about the pipe, and the company Marcantel hired discover the easement did not find it. Because of an indexing error by the county recorder, at least three different title companies on four separate occasions failed to find and note the sewer easement on the property. Marcantel first heard about the easement when his prospective buyer alerted him to it; that buyer fortuitously learned of the easement from a neighboring property owner. The prospective buyer then balked at Marcantel’s asking price. Marcantel eventually sold the lot at a significant loss. Marcantel sued the Saltmans for, among other things, fraudulent nondisclosure and breach of the parties’ real estate purchase contract, arguing the Saltmans’ silence breached their contractual and common-law duties to disclose the easement. The Saltmans claimed they had assumed Marcantel knew about the easement, and in any event, Marcantel had constructive notice of the easement because it was publicly recorded. The district court granted the Saltmans summary judgment on all Marcantel’s claims. On appeal, Marcantel argued the district court repeatedly misapplied Utah law and disregarded summary-judgment procedure that required it to draw inferences in Marcantel’s favor. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed, reversing in part the trial court's grant of summary judgment, but affirmed in all other respects. View "Marcantel v. Michael & Sonja Saltman Family" on Justia Law

Petitioners Ana Orellana-Recinos and her son, Kevin Rosales-Orellana, natives and citizens of El Salvador, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) dismissal of their applications for asylum. They contended they were persecuted because of their membership in a particular social group: namely, Kevin’s immediate family. Even assuming that Kevin’s immediate family qualified as a particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the BIA properly found that Petitioners were not persecuted “on account of” their membership in that group. In addition, the Court rejected the government’s argument that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s decision. View "Orellana-Recinos v. Barr" on Justia Law

“Talk Big” was Defendant Jalil Robinson’s handle on a dating website, and his strategy for recruiting seventeen-year-old Nikki from Colorado to work for him as a prostitute on the same site. Promising a life of luxury, Defendant convinced Nikki, who originally represented herself as eighteen-year-old Brooke, to come join him as his “business partner” in California. Little did he know he was communicating with an undercover officer posing as Nikki. Defendant’s actions led to a jury convicting him of attempted sex trafficking of a minor. Defendant claimed on appeal that the government produced insufficient evidence to find him guilty of attempted sex trafficking of a minor. The Tenth Circuit determined the trial court record established the contrary, and affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In August 2008, 20-year-old defendant Kepa Maumau participated in armed robberies of a clothing store and two restaurants. Maumau was indicted for his role in those robberies and ultimately convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit a racketeering offense, two counts of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering, one count of Hobbs Act robbery, and three counts of using a gun during a crime of violence. At the time of Maumau’s convictions, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) included a “stacking” provision that required a district court to impose consecutive sentences of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for second or subsequent convictions of the statute, even if those convictions occurred at the same time as a defendant’s first conviction under the statute. As a result of that “stacking” provision, Maumau was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 55 years. In December 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act), 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Three provisions of the First Step Act were relevant to this appeal. In October 2019, Maumau moved to reduce his sentence, arguing that that extraordinary and compelling reasons, including the First Step Act’s elimination of section 924(c)’s stacking provision, justified a reduction. The district court granted Maumau’s motion and reduced Maumau’s sentence to time served, plus a three-year term of supervised release. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting Maumau’s motion. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Maumau" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health & Safety, Arthur Firstenberg, and Monika Steinhoff (collectively the “Alliance”) brought a number of claims under Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”), New Mexico’s Wireless Consumer Advanced Infrastructure Investment Act (“WCAIIA”), the Amendments to Chapter 27 of the Santa Fe City City Code, and Santa Fe mayor proclamations. The Alliance alleged the statutes and proclamations violated due process, the Takings Clause, and the First Amendment. Through its amended complaint, the Alliance contended the installation of telecommunications facilities, primarily cellular towers and antennas, on public rights-of-way exposed its members to dangerous levels of radiation. The Alliance further contended these legislative and executive acts prevented it from effectively speaking out against the installation of new telecommunications facilities. The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and (b)(6), and the City of Santa Fe moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded that while the Alliance pled sufficient facts to establish standing to assert its constitutional claims, the Alliance failed to allege facts stating any constitutional claim upon which relief could be granted, thus dismissing claims against all defendants, including New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Alliance's constitutional claims, finding apart from the district court, that the Alliance lacked standing to raise its takings and due process claims not premised on an alleged denial of notice. Furthermore, the Court held that while the Alliance satisfied the threshold for standing as to its First Amendment and procedural due process claims (premised on the WCAIIA and Chapter 27 Amendments), the district court properly dismissed these claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). View "Santa Fe Alliance v. City of Santa Fe" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Abiel Perez-Perez pled guilty to being an alien in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the district court’s failure to advise him of two elements of that offense: (1) the alien was illegally or unlawfully present in the United States; and (2) the alien knew that he was illegally or unlawfully present. The government conceded that the omission of these elements constituted error that was now plain on appeal. The only dispute was whether Perez satisfied the third and fourth prongs of plain-error review. The Tenth Circuit concluded Perez could not satisfy the third prong because he could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. "Although Perez has a credible claim that, at the time of the offense, he did not know he was unlawfully present in the United States, he has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s error. This is because the context of Perez’s guilty plea makes clear that he pled guilty to avoid mandatory minimum sentences attached to charges the government dismissed in exchange for the guilty plea. Perez fails to show how the district court’s error impacted that choice, and he thus fails to satisfy the third plain-error prong." View "United States v. Perez-Perez" on Justia Law