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

Ronald Throupe, a Professor of Real Estate at the University of Denver ("DU"), brought an employment discrimination claim under Title IX against DU as well as several faculty and staff members. In 2013, Throupe was a candidate to serve as director of the Real Estate and Construction Management department. DU ultimately hired outside of the school, bringing in Barbara Jackson to lead the department. According to Throupe, upon Jackon’s arrival, she made clear in conversations with professors, she would force some of the tenured real estate faculty members to leave. In 2014, the University Title IX office was contacted multiple times about Throupe's relationship with a foreign graduate student. In an email to University officials, Jackson concluded "Ron believes he has done nothing but help this girl, but his behaviors have been totally unprofessional and inappropriate, his father/daughter views perverted, and his obsession out of control." The Title IX investigator and DU’s Manager of Equal Employment had a follow-up meeting with Throupe. Afterward, he sent an email to the Manager of Equal Employment formally reporting a hostile work environment. When Throupe later asked whether any actions had been taken in response to his report, the investigator told Throupe his claim “did not result in any formal investigation by the Office of Equal Employment.” However, the school issued him a written warning, admonishing him from further contact with the student. Throupe maintained that Jackson continued to harass him even after the written warning. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Although Throupe had dedicated little space in his briefing to arguing any theory of sex discrimination, the district court identified two theories of sex discrimination in Throupe’s argument: that defendants created a hostile work environment and engaged in disparate treatment against him. But the court determined that Throupe had failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under either of these theories. Having dismissed Throupe’s sole federal claim, the district court declined to consider the remaining state law claims due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, specifically concluding the district court did not err in concluding that Throupe failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he was discriminated against on the basis of his sex. View "Throupe v. University of Denver" on Justia Law

Defendant Nabeel Aziz Khan (“Nabeel”) and his brother, Defendant Dr. Shakeel Kahn were convicted by a Wyoming jury on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. Defendants were tried together; they appealed separately, but because their appeals raised several overlapping issues, the Tenth Circuit addressed both appeals in this opinion. In 2008, Dr. Kahn started a medical practice in Ft. Mohave, Arizona. Later that year, Nabeel arrived in Arizona and began assisting with managing Dr. Kahn’s practice. After Nabeel’s arrival, Dr. Kahn’s practice shifted towards pain management. Dr. Kahn regularly prescribed patients various controlled substances. The prescriptions he wrote aligned closely with what patients were able to pay, rather than the patients’ medical need; when patients were prescribed more pills, Dr. Kahn charged more for his medical services, and when patients could not afford the price of the prescription, Dr. Kahn prescribed fewer pills, or withheld a prescription entirely. The price of prescriptions also closely tracked the “street price” of the pills. In addition to shifting towards pain management, Dr. Kahn’s practice also shifted to a primarily “cash-only” basis, although he also accepted payment in personal property, including firearms. Many of Dr. Kahn’s patients sold pills so they could afford their prescriptions. Beginning in late 2012, pharmacies in the Ft. Mohave area began refusing to fill prescriptions issued by Dr. Kahn. In 2015, he opened a second practice in Casper, Wyoming. During that time, Dr. Kahn continued to travel to Arizona to see patients about once per month; other patients travelled to Wyoming to see Dr. Kahn. Nabeel primarily resided at Dr. Kahn’s Arizona residence, and acted as office manager for the Arizona office. Dr. Kahn’s wife, Lyn Kahn, acted as office manager for the Wyoming office. In 2016, the government investigated Dr. Kahn's prescribing practices, which lead to a search warrant executed on Dr. Kahn's Wyoming residence, his Arizona residence, and a separate business he and his wife owned in Wyoming, "Vape World." Reviewing defendants' challenges, the Tenth Circuit concluded the trial court committed no reversible errors and affirmed defendants' convictions. View "United States v. Khan" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a police search of defendant Mathias Mora's home violated the Fourth Amendment. Officers responded to a 911 call reporting that dozens of people exited the back of a tractor trailer behind a supermarket. When officers arrived, the trailer was gone. But officers found fourteen people lacking identification; none of the captured passengers suggested that the driver, or anyone else, took any passengers to another location. Officers soon discovered a trailer matching the 911 caller’s description in a nearby Walmart parking lot. Officers opened the trailer’s rear doors to find it empty, except for a bottle apparently containing urine and the smell of body odor. Officers did not open the locked cab door. Officers learned the trailer was registered to Defendant, proceeded to his home, and placed Defendant and his wife under arrest. Mrs. Mora denied the officers permission to search the home. Even so, officers conducted a warrantless search (protective sweep) of the home after consulting with the U.S. Attorney’s Office “to ensure the safety of agents” and “the safety of other potential undocumented immigrants.” Although they did not find any people, officers noticed what they believed to be a gun safe and ammunition containers. Officers also learned that Defendant was a felon, which would make him a prohibited possessor. The government obtained a warrant to search Defendant’s home for evidence of alien smuggling and prohibited possession of a firearm or ammunition. A subsequent search turned up both firearms and ammunition. Defendant ultimately pled guilty to two counts of alien smuggling and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to 32 months for smuggling and 48 months for gun possession, all to run concurrently. Defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion, which related only to his felon in possession conviction. Finding officers lacked probable cause to search Defendant's home, the district court's suppression order was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Mora" on Justia Law

Appellant Victor Kearney was the lifetime income beneficiary of two spendthrift trusts when he filed for bankruptcy in 2017. The United States Trustee’s office appointed an unsecured creditors committee (“UCC”) which proposed a reorganization plan contemplating a one-time trust distribution to pay off appellant's debts. After a New Mexico state court modified the trusts to authorize the distribution, the bankruptcy court approved the plan. Appellant appealed. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) of the Tenth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court did not deny appellant due process, made no errors in its findings of fact, and did not abuse its discretion in settling appellant's claims. On appeal of that decision, appellant argued that using spendthrift trust assets to fund the reorganization plan violated the trusts’ spendthrift provision and the law, and that approving the settlement of his claims amounted to an abuse of the bankruptcy court’s discretion. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BAP. View "Kearney v. Unsecured Creditors Committee" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Ronald Benton was convicted by jury of one count of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The district court imposed a sentence based on the penalty found in 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). Benton challenges his conviction on multiple grounds. The Tenth Circuit found that each of those grounds was predicated on accepting his proposed interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Specifically, Benton argued that, under Rehaif, the government was required to prove not only that he knew he was a domestic violence misdemeanant, but also that he knew that status prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Benton contended his conviction had to be vacated because the jury was not instructed it must find he knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm, and because the government presented insufficient evidence concerning his knowledge that he was so prohibited. To this, the Tenth Circuit rejected Benton’s interpretation of Rehaif, holding that in a prosecution under sections 922(g) and 924(a)(2), the government need not prove a defendant knew his status under section 922(g) prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Instead, the only knowledge required for conviction was that the defendant knew: (1) he possessed a firearm; and (2) had the relevant status under section 922(g) at the time of his possession. Because the Court rejected Benton’s proposed interpretation of Rehaif, the Court further rejected his challenges to the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Benton" on Justia Law

In 2013, a refinery unit (“Unit”) at the Sinclair Wyoming Refinery Co. (“Sinclair”) in Sinclair, Wyoming caught fire and exploded because its “FV-241” control valve fractured and released flammable hydrogen gas. A high temperature hydrogen attack (“HTHA”) weakened the valve and caused the fracture. FV-241 was made from carbon steel, which was more susceptible to HTHA than stainless steel. Sinclair had purchased the Unit in 2004. Sinclair moved the Unit from California to Wyoming and converted it from its previous use to a hydrotreater, a refinery unit that introduced hydrogen to remove impurities from the product stream. Sinclair contracted the design, engineering, and construction work to other companies. During the moving and conversion process, FV-241 was remanufactured and installed on the Unit. Sinclair brought a diversity action against seven companies involved in dismantling the Unit, converting it to a hydrotreater, rebuilding it in Wyoming, and remanufacturing and installing FV-241. Sinclair alleged various contract and tort claims. The district court granted several motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment that eliminated all of Sinclair’s claims. The court also entered summary judgment in favor of certain Defendants’ indemnity counterclaim. Although its analysis diverged from the district court's judgment in some respects, the Tenth Circuit affirmed orders dismissing or granting summary judgment on all of Sinclair's claims, and granting summary judgment on the indemnity counter claim. View "Sinclair Wyoming Refining v. A & B Builders" on Justia Law

Reliance Standard Life Insurance (“Reliance”) appealed district court’s orders: (1) concluding that Reliance wrongly denied David Carlile’s claim for long-term disability benefits; (2) refusing to remand the case and instead ordering an award of benefits; (3) awarding attorney fees and costs to Carlile; and (4) denying Reliance’s motion to amend or alter judgment. After reviewing the policy at issue here, the Tenth Circuit determined the relevant policy language was ambiguous and therefore construed it in Carlile’s favor, and in favor of coverage. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in refusing to remand the case back to Reliance or in awarding attorney fees and costs to Carlile. View "Carlile v. Reliance Standard Life Ins." on Justia Law

Prior to her arrest in May 2017, Defendant-Appellant Gladys Nkome participated in an international “advance-fee” conspiracy managed by individuals located in the Republic of Cameroon. The Cameroon-based organizers created websites that purportedly sold legal and illegal goods. They convinced prospective online buyers to wire purchase money to fictitious U.S.-based sellers. A U.S.-based individual posing as a seller (a so-called “money mule”) would retrieve the wired money, take a percentage, and send the remainder overseas to the conspiracy’s organizers. The buyers would never receive the items that they sought to purchase. For approximately thirteen months, Ms. Nkome used at least thirty-five (35) fraudulent identities to collect $357,078.74 in wire transfers connected to the conspiracy. Nkome challenged the district court’s denial of a mitigating-role adjustment under United States Sentencing Guideline section 3B1.2. After careful consideration of Ms. Nkome’s arguments, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err. View "United States v. Nkome" on Justia Law

In 2010, defendant Shaun Salazar pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1). Section 922(g)(1), by way of 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), carried a statutory maximum of 120 months in prison. In 2011, district court sentenced Salazar to 115 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Salazar completed his prison term and began serving his term of supervised release in May 2019. Soon after, a probation officer filed a petition to revoke Salazar’s supervised release, alleging that Salazar violated two conditions of his supervised release by committing battery against his brother and associating with a felon, his girlfriend. Salazar appealed the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to ten months’ imprisonment, arguing his ten-month prison sentence was illegal because, when combined with his prior 115-month prison term, it exceeded the 120-month statutory maximum for his crime of conviction. The Tenth Circuit previously rejected this argument in United States v. Robinson, holding “that [18 U.S.C. section] 3583 authorizes the revocation of supervised release even where the resulting incarceration, when combined with the period of time the defendant has already served for his [or her] substantive offense, will exceed the maximum incarceration permissible under the substantive statute.” Because it remained bound by Robinson, the Court affirmed. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

This case arose from a bankruptcy filing by Thomas Crow, who owned substantial property and investment accounts in Wyoming. His bankruptcy petition sought an exemption for approximately $2 million contained in a Fidelity account, which he claimed was jointly held with his wife (who did not file for bankruptcy) and therefore was shielded from creditors under Wyoming law. The Trustee and a creditor, Radiance Capital Receivables Nineteen, L.L.C., objected to the claimed exemption. After a hearing, the bankruptcy court upheld the exemption, and a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. On appeal, Radiance appealed the BAP’s affirmance. Crow argued the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the BAP’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s ruling on the claimed exemption was not “final” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(1). Radiance also challenged the BAP’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s ruling that an adversary proceeding was required to determine the amount of joint debt held by the Crows before any portion of the Fidelity account must be turned over to the Trustee. Finding it had jurisdiction, and deciding on the merits, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying Wyoming law, Court concluded the Crows jointly held the Fidelity account with a right of survivorship (“tenancy by the entirety” at common law) and was therefore exempt from the bankrupt estate. Furthermore, the tenancy by the entirety was not severed by the Crows’ subsequent conduct. The Court determined Radiance lacked standing to challenge that portion of the BAP’s ruling with regard to the adversary proceeding, and therefore dismissed that aspect of its appeal. View "Radiance Capital v. Crow" on Justia Law