# Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44772 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** March 1, 2017 - **Citation:** R44772 ## Text Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch ,name redacted,, Coordinator Acting Section Research Manager ,name redacted, Legislative Attorney ,name redacted, Legislative Attorney ,name redacted, Legislative Attorney ,name redacted, Legislative Attorney March 1, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44772 Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch Summary On January 31, 2017, President Trump announced the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit) to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016. Judge Gorsuch has served as a judge on the Tenth Circuit since August 2006, and has also sat, by designation, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This report provides a tabular listing of cases in which Judge Gorsuch authored a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion. The opinions are categorized into three tables: Table 1 identifies opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch on behalf of a unanimous panel; Table 2 contains controlling opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch in which one or more panelists wrote a separate opinion; and Table 3 lists cases where Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring or dissenting opinion (decisions where Judge Gorsuch wrote both the majority opinion and a separate concurrence are included in this final table). Opinions are identified and briefly discussed in each table in reverse chronological order. The opinions are also categorized by their primary legal subject. While this report identifies and briefly describes judicial opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch during his time on the federal court, it does not analyze the implications of his judicial opinions or suggest how he might approach legal issues if appointed to the Supreme Court. Those matters will be discussed in a forthcoming CRS report. Key CRS products related to the Supreme Court vacancy and Judge Gorsuch’s nomination are collected in CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1526, Vacancy on the Supreme Court: CRS Products, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). Congressional Research Service Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch Contents Tables Table 1. Opinions Authored by Judge Gorsuch for a Unanimous Panel ......................................... 5 Table 2. Majority Opinions Authored by Judge Gorsuch for Which Another Judge Wrote a Concurrence or Dissent ......................................................................................................... 109 Table 3. Concurring and Dissenting Opinions Authored by Judge Gorsuch ............................... 121 Contacts Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 152 Congressional Research Service Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch n January 31, 2017, President Trump announced the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit) to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016.1 Judge Gorsuch has served as an appellate judge for the Tenth Circuit since August 2006, and has also sat, by designation,2 on both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). O During his tenure on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has served on three-judge or en banc Tenth Circuit panels that have issued over 2,700 judicial decisions.3 He has also sat, by designation, on Ninth Circuit panels that issued decisions in 11 cases (in which Judge Gorsuch authored dissenting opinions in two cases) and D.C. Circuit panels that issued decisions in six cases (for which Judge Gorsuch authored no opinions).4 The Tenth Circuit, like appellate courts for other numbered circuits, generally reviews cases initiated within the geographic region over which the circuit has jurisdiction; in the case of the Tenth Circuit, this includes the states of Colorado, Kansas, Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah, along with portions of Yellowstone National Park reaching into Idaho and Montana.5 While the Tenth Circuit’s docket includes cases touching upon a wide range of legal topics, including administrative law, bankruptcy, contract disputes, immigration, intellectual property, and Indian Law, a significant portion of the docket involves criminal law and claims brought by federal or state prisoners concerning their convictions or subsequent incarceration.6 Unlike the Supreme Court, which enjoys “almost complete discretion” in selecting its cases, the federal courts of appeals are required to adjudicate many cases as a matter of law and, as a result, tend to hear 1 The White House, President Trump Announces Supreme Court of the United States Nominee, https://www.whitehouse.gov/featured-videos/video/2017/01/31/president-trump-announces-supreme-court-unitedstates-nominee (last accessed Feb. 22, 2017). 2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, General Information, https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk (last accessed Feb. 22, 2017). 3 When responding to a questionnaire from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Judge Gorsuch estimated that he had sat on panels that had issued “approximately 2,750” decisions. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Responses to Questionnaire for the Nominee of the Supreme Court (public version), at 25, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/ media/doc/Neil%20M.%20Gorsuch%20SJQ%20(Public).pdf. CRS searched all federal cases in the Westlaw legal database using the search strategy pa(Gorsuch) or ju(Gorsuch) or wb(Gorsuch), which are the segments for “Panel,” “Judge,” and “WrittenBy,” and which would presumably identify all cases identified by Westlaw editors on which Judge Gorsuch sat on a circuit panel (including, but not limited to, those cases where he wrote the panel’s opinion) and retrieved 2,731 results. However, searching federal cases in LexisAdvance, another legal database, for ju(gorsuch), which would identify the cases where Lexis editors identified Judge Gorsuch as a member of a panel that issued an opinion, retrieved 2,860 results. A review of these results revealed instances where a single case generated multiple documents. For example, a Tenth Circuit ruling in Allen v. Workman appeared in the LexisAdvance results as two separate documents: Allen v. Workman, 464 F. App’x 768 (10th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) and Allen v. Workman, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 20121 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 2012). However, Westlaw returned only one of these documents, 464 F. App’x 768 (10th Cir. 2012). 4 The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court “may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any circuit judge to act as circuit judge in another circuit upon request by the chief judge or circuit justice of such circuit.” 28 U.S.C. § 291(a). Judge Gorsuch’s designation to sit as a visiting judge was pursuant to this process. See Hurt v. United States Dist. Court Judges, 258 F. App’x 341, n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 5 General Information on the Tenth Circuit, supra note 2. 6 Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Court Management Statistics, U.S. Court of Appeals - Judicial Caseload Profiled, at 23 (Sept. 2016), http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/ fcms_na_appprofile0930.2016_2.pdf (categorizing appeals filed with, and terminated by, the Tenth Circuit between Sept. 2010 and Sept. 2016, and showing that over 40 percent, and in some years more than half, of the appellate docket consisted of criminal cases or claims brought by prisoners). Congressional Research Service 1 Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch “many routine cases in which the legal rules are uncontroverted.”7 Perhaps indicative of the nature of federal appellate work, the vast majority of cases decided by three-judge panels of federal courts of appeals are decided without dissent,8 and the Tenth Circuit is no exception.9 This report provides tabular listings of the roughly 854 cases in which Judge Gorsuch authored a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion. Arguably, these written opinions provide the greatest insight into Judge Gorsuch’s judicial approach, as a judge’s vote or decision to join an opinion authored by a colleague may not necessarily represent full agreement with a colleague’s views.10 Accordingly, this report does not include cases in which Judge Gorsuch sat on a reviewing judicial panel, but did not author an opinion. Additionally, instances where Judge Gorsuch was part of a panel that issued a per curiam opinion, in which no particular judge was credited as an author, are omitted from this report.11 The report also does not address subsequent legal proceedings that may have occurred after a cited decision was issued.12 The opinions discussed in this report are categorized into three tables: Table 1 identifies opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch on behalf of a unanimous panel; Table 2 contains controlling opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch in which one or more panelists wrote a separate opinion; and Table 3 lists cases where Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring or dissenting opinion, including cases where Judge Gorsuch wrote both the majority opinion and a separate concurrence.13 A concurring opinion is identified as a “concurrence in the judgment”—that is, an opinion where the author agrees with the ultimate conclusion reached by the majority but not the manner in which it was reached—only when the concurrence is expressly labeled as such.14 7 Louis J. Sirico, Jr., The Citing of Law Reviews by the United States Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Analysis, 45 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1051, 1052 n.8 (1991); see generally HON. RICHARD A. POSNER, THE FEDERAL COURTS: CHALLENGE AND REFORM 367 (2009) (observing that “more of the work of [the federal appellate] courts really is technical.... Most of the appeals they get can be decided uncontroversially by the application of settled principles”). 8 See FRANK B. CROSS, DECISION MAKING IN THE U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS 160 (2007) (noting the “relative paucity of circuit court panel dissents”). 9 See Christopher A. Cotropia, Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit by Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 801, 815 (2010) (noting that from 1998 to 2009, 2.54% of the opinions issued by the Tenth Circuit garnered a dissent); Hon. Neil M. Gorsuch, Law’s Irony, 37 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 743, 753 (2014) (“Over ninety percent of the decisions issued by my court are unanimous; that’s pretty typical of the federal appellate courts.”). 10 See Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as quoted in Irin Carmon, Opinion, Justice Ginsburg’s Cautious Radicalism, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 24, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/justice-ginsburgs-cautious-radicalism.html (observing that “an opinion of the court very often reflects views that are not 100 percent what the opinion author would do, were she writing for herself”); Steven D. Smith, Lessons from Lincoln: A Comment on Levinson, 38 PEPP. L. REV. 915, 924 (2011) (“[T]he fact that a judge joins in a majority opinion may not be taken as indicating complete agreement. Rather, silent acquiescence may be understood to mean something more like ‘I accept the outcome in this case, and I accept that the reasoning in the majority opinion reflects what a majority of my colleagues has agreed on.’”). 11 This report also does not attempt to identify the various rulings made by circuit panels on procedural issues during the course of litigation (e.g., granting a litigator’s request for an extension of time to file a brief), which are not captured by searches of Lexis or Westlaw databases. 12 A forthcoming CRS report analyzing Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudence will provide a listing of Tenth Circuit decisions subsequently reviewed by the Supreme Court in which Judge Gorsuch had been a member of the reviewing circuit court panel. 13 Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016); Browder v. City of Albuquerque, 787 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2015). 14 James F. Spriggs II & David R. Stras, Explaining Plurality Decisions, 99 GEO. L.J. 515, 519-520 (2011) (“[A] simple concurring opinion indicates that the [judge] writing separately agrees with the legal rule and its application in the majority opinion but that there is some aspect of the case worthy of further discussion.... [A]n opinion concurring in the (continued...) Congressional Research Service 2 Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch Cases are listed in reverse chronological order. In each case, the key ruling or rulings of the case are succinctly described. Judicial opinions discussed in this report are categorized using the following 18 legal subject areas:                   Administrative Law Bankruptcy Civil Rights Civil Liability (e.g., tort, preemption, arbitration, class actions, statutory right to sue) Contracts Criminal Law and Procedure Education Environmental Law Federal Courts (e.g., standing to sue, civil procedure) First Amendment (including both constitutional protections and closely related statutory protections contained in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) Habeas Immigration Indian Law Insurance Intellectual Property Labor and Employment Public Benefits (e.g., eligibility for Social Security disability) Tax Where appropriate, multiple subject areas are identified as relevant to a particular case. However, the list above is not an exhaustive accounting of all possible legal subjects addressed in judicial writings of Judge Gorsuch. Moreover, the fact that a case is categorized under a particular legal subject area does not necessarily mean that some observers might not deem other categories to be pertinent. For example, the “Habeas” category is used for cases that involve review (or consideration of whether to review) petitions for a writ of habeas corpus from state or federal prisoners. However, some observers might also argue that such cases could properly fall under the “Criminal Law and Procedure” category (because habeas petitions are typically brought by criminal defendants challenging their convictions or subsequent incarceration) or, alternatively, the “Federal Courts” category (because habeas proceedings are civil in nature and often turn on (...continued) judgment is the functional equivalent of a dissent from the [controlling opinion’s] reasoning even if it represents agreement with the result reached in the case.”). The nature of a concurring opinion, including the legal significance that should be given to whether the opinion labels itself a “concurrence” or a “concurrence in the judgment,” is a matter of scholarly discussion and occasional judicial importance, particularly in cases where there is a question as to whether a majority of the court shared the same legal rationale to support the court’s ruling. See generally Sonja R. West, Concurring in Part & Concurring in the Confusion, 104 MICH. L. REV. 1951, 1955-1956 and 1958 (2006) (arguing that “the phrase following the comma” after the authoring judge’s name—e.g., “concurring” or “concurring in the judgment”—has been “used in an inconsistent, unclear, and often contradictory manner” that has led to confusion among commentators and courts regarding the degree to which the judge endorses the analysis of the majority opinion). Congressional Research Service 3 Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch questions of when or whether courts may review a habeas claim). Accordingly, while the categorizations employed in this report are intended to provide a helpful guide to readers in locating decisions dealing with major legal topics, the categories do not necessarily reflect the full range of legal issues a judicial opinion may involve. While this report identifies and briefly describes those opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch during his tenure on the federal bench, it does not analyze the implications of his judicial opinions or suggest how he might approach legal issues if appointed to the Supreme Court. Those matters will be discussed in a forthcoming CRS report. Methodology The cases included in this report were compiled by searching all federal cases in the LexisAdvance legal database for writtenby(Gorsuch),15 concurby(Gorsuch)16 and dissentby(Gorsuch).17 Because editors of different legal databases may vary in how they identify cases,18 a subsequent search was conducted of all federal cases in the Westlaw legal database using wb(Gorsuch) as a cross-check to those results.19 These results were last compared on February 22, 2017. Ultimately, this methodology identified approximately 854 instances in which Judge Gorsuch is credited as an author of a judicial opinion in cases either before the Tenth Circuit (approximately 852 cases) or the Ninth Circuit (two cases).20 It should be noted that in a handful of cases, an opinion authored by Judge Gorsuch was subsequently republished with minimal, and sometimes only stylistic, changes. Depending upon the nature of these modifications, duplicative decisions are either listed in separate table rows (i.e., when there is a substantive change to the original opinion21) or, alternatively, a single table row is used to identify and discuss both decisions (e.g., when the difference between the two opinions consists of stylistic changes necessary for official publication22). 15 The “WrittenBy” segment in LexisAdvance restricts searches to the names of the judge(s) writing an opinion, as identified by Lexis editors. 16 The “ConcurBy” segment restricts searches to the names of the judge(s) writing a concurring opinion, including opinions concurring in part and opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part, as identified by Lexis editors. 17 The “DissentBy” segment restricts searches to the names of the judge(s) writing a dissenting opinion, an opinion dissenting in part, or an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, as identified by Lexis editors. 18 See supra note 3 (observing differences in search results for the number of panel decisions in which Judge Gorsuch participated, depending upon whether the Westlaw or LexisAdvance database was used). 19 The “WB” or “Writtenby” segment in Westlaw restricts searches to the names of the judge(s) writing an opinion, as identified by Westlaw editors. 20 Not every case identified using this methodology actually proved relevant. For example, a February 22, 2017, search of LexisAdvance using the methodology described above identified Judge Gorsuch as the author of the court opinion in Jaramillo v. Vallejos, 220 F. App’x. 838 (2007), though the opinion credits another judge on the panel. 21 See, e.g., United States v. Henry, No. 15-6181, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020 (Feb. 3, 2017) (republishing opinion originally published in 839 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2016), but adding a substantive footnote). 22 See, e.g., Smith v. McCord, 707 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2013) (modified, by order published by No. 12-2041, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3549 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2013), to make “stylistic changes” necessary for official publication). Congressional Research Service 4 Table 1. Opinions Authored by Judge Gorsuch for a Unanimous Panel Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Henry No. 156181, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020 2017 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Remanded: In revoking defendant’s supervised release and imposing a new sentence after finding that the defendant, after his release from federal prison, had engaged in two assaults and lied to his probation officer, the district court did not apply the standards required under Tenth Circuit precedent concerning the admission of certain hearsay evidence. The district court inappropriately relied upon hearsay in finding the defendant committed one of the assaults. Remand was therefore required for a new sentencing analysis by the lower court. This opinion is a reissuance of an earlier opinion in 839 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2016), discussed below, with an additional footnote. United States v. Marshall No. 167068, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 401 2017 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right because petitioner was not sentenced under the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act that was invalidated as unconstitutionally vague by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States. Bigham v. Allbaugh No. 167068, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 389 2017 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. Hammond v. Stamps.com, Inc. 844 F.3d 909 2016 Authored majority Administrative Law Order vacated and remanded: A class action suit against a postage subscription service sufficiently alleged an amount in controversy to support federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); the legally possible minimum damages based on each potential class member exceeded the jurisdictional minimum of the CAFA regardless of whether the class action would likely recover damages. United States v. Rivera No. 151228, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 21915 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Federal Courts Affirmed: There was no plain error in allowing prosecution to ask a question on cross-examination implying the existence of certain facts that were not supported in the record. CRS-5 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Smith v. Farris No. 165115, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21623 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. United States v. Mendoza-Haro Nos. 151276 & 161023, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21611 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court acted within its discretion and committed no error in denying a motion for reconsideration by defendant for sentence reduction based on her post-sentencing conduct. White v. Deere & Co. No. 161098, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21287 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: In a product liability suit, district court did not err in its jury instructions, required under Colorado law, concerning a presumption that the product was free from defect. Hopper v. Fenton No. 165006, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21292 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Civil Rights Affirmed: No constitutional violation occurred under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the failure to include certain facts in the affidavit did not vitiate the probable cause that supported the defendant’s arrest. United States v. Tarango No. 162015, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21038 2016 Authored majority Habeas; Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: A writ of coram nobis to invalidate a guilty plea entered 17 years prior to the instant petition was not available because the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in raising his ineffective counsel claim in prior proceedings. Lancaster v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. No. 166056, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21037 2016 Authored majority Labor & Employment Affirmed: Plaintiff-employee failed to meet her evidentiary burden to survive defendant’s motion for summary judgment on employment discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. CRS-6 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Garman v. Garaychochea No. 164096, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20920 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Civil Rights Affirmed: Police officers did not deny plaintiff his due process rights during his pretrial detention; evidence clearly demonstrated that contrary to plaintiff’s claim, the officers did not prevent him from changing his soiled clothes. Morris v. Dowling No. 165131, 2016 WL 6871874 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Moore v. McCollum No. 166167, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19307 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel, as appellate counsel did not err in omitting a due process claim. United States v. Henry 839 F.3d 1271 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Remanded: In revoking defendant’s supervised release and imposing a new sentence after finding that the defendant, following his release from federal prison, had engaged in two assaults and lied to his probation officer, the district court did not apply the standards required under Tenth Circuit precedent concerning the admission of certain hearsay evidence. The court inappropriately relied upon hearsay in finding that the defendant committed one of the assaults. Remand was therefore required for a new sentencing analysis by the lower court. This opinion was subsequently reissued with an additional footnote as No. 15-6181, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020 (Feb. 3, 2017) discussed above. Alvarez v. Grosso No. 151398, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18656 2016 Authored majority First Amendment; Federal Courts Affirmed: An order barring entry onto a military base was upheld because the appellant, who did not question the military commander’s authority to bar civilians from the base, failed to preserve a First Amendment claim that any portion of the base was used as a public forum, and he did not suggest that the announced grounds for the bar were arbitrary or discriminatory. CRS-7 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Hodge v. Utah No. 164043, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18567 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. United States v. Espinoza No. 162176, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18521 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Parker v. Dowling No. 166219, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17900 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right because, under Oklahoma law, the power to commute a sentence is in the sole discretion of the governor and not subject to a due process challenge. United States v. Tolliver No. 165057, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16950 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. The trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutional sufficiency of petitioner’s indictment, and counsel’s sentencing calculation error did not result in prejudicial error. UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Myton 835 F.3d 1255 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Indian Law Reversed and reassigned: District court erred when it dismissed the Ute Indian Tribe’s suit alleging that a town was improperly prosecuting tribal members in state court for offenses on land that had been restored to tribal jurisdiction. The tribe stated a plausible claim for relief premised on prior judicial decisions that determined the boundaries of tribal jurisdiction. Reassignment to a different judge was also appropriate given judge’s failure to give effect to court’s earlier mandate in the litigation. This decision is a reissuance, with a sua sponte amendment of a single sentence, of UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Myton, 832 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2016). CRS-8 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Watson v. Missouri No. 163095, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15690 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of abstention set forth by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris barred claims that defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional and state law rights by ordering him to provide child support and health insurance. Winkel v. Heimgartner No. 163177, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15351 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel because his attorney did not act contrary to defendant’s interests by requesting competency proceedings, and the finding of incompetence to stand trial did not violate his right to a speedy trial. Glaser v. Raemisch No. 161228, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15211 2016 Authored majority Habeas; Civil Rights Affirmed, certificate of appealability granted: District court’s order dismissing the claim that the defendant was unconstitutionally denied good time credits was affirmed because a prisoner cannot use 42 U.S.C. §1983 to challenge the validity of his sentence. The court also properly dismissed his habeas petition because his petition for certiorari was still pending before the Colorado Supreme Court. However, a certificate of appealability was granted because his state remedies would be exhausted once the state court denied his petition for certiorari. United States v. Gronski No. 161228, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15005 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Defendant was precluded from requesting a reduction in his sentence as a result of a retroactive change in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, because he made a request for reduction the prior year but did not appeal the denial; further, his sentence, which arose from a plea agreement, was not “based on” the guideline range. United States v. Ackerman 831 F.3d 1292 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Reversed and remanded: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a government actor for Fourth Amendment purposes, so its review of the defendant’s emails qualified as a Fourth Amendment search for which a warrant was required; remand was necessary for the district court to determine whether the warrantless search was nonetheless reasonable. * Judge Hartz did not join the portion of the panel opinion that discussed the potential application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Jones, but did not author a separate opinion. CRS-9 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Reed 654 F. App’x 935 2016 Authored majority Habeas; Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Appeal of denial of motion to amend defendant’s forfeiture motion was denied for failure to raise the claim properly, and any challenge to defendant’s conviction could not be appealed, but required a 28 U.S.C. §2255 habeas corpus order. Ellis v. Lemons No. 164031, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12536 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court’s decision to abstain from proceeding on the merits pending resolution of a closely related and ongoing state court proceeding was appropriate, so long as the pending state court proceeding existed before the federal district court had begun its own proceedings on the merits. United States v. Johnson No. 157070, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12178 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: Criminal appeal was dismissed pursuant to Anders v. California because there were no nonfrivolous arguments to be made on appeal. United States v. Mitchell 653 F. App’x 651 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Evidence obtained from a GPS device installed without a warrant did not need to be excluded under the Fourth Amendment. The officer acted reasonably in relying on existing precedent that authorized him to install and monitor a GPS device. Lawton v. Patton Nos. 154022 & 154084, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11049 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. United States v. Marshall 652 F. App’x 719 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: A court-imposed prohibition upon defendant affiliating with known gangs and the requirement that he live in a home with a surveillance system were properly imposed conditions of supervised release. The conditions were reasonably related to the need to protect the public and were specific to the defendant’s character. El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile Co. 825 F.3d 1161 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Intellectual Property Reversed: District court erred in granting respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena in a trademark suit because requesting a deposition was not a necessary precondition to a document demand. Galbreath v. Patton 654 F. App’x 378 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. CRS-10 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Sellers v. Cline 651 F. App’x 804 2016 Authored majority Civil Liability Affirmed: Damage claims against state correction officers acting in their official capacity, which arose from an assault on an inmate by two other inmates, were barred by Eleventh Amendment. The correction officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence that their actions created substantial risk of harm to the prisoner or that they were aware of and indifferent to that risk. United Planners Fin. Servs. of Am., L.P. v. Sac & Fox Nation 654 F. App’x 376 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Indian Law Affirmed: Appellant failed to exhaust its tribal court remedies and so could not invoke federal jurisdiction. Tong v. New Mexico 651 F. App’x 798 2016 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Federal officer defendants were entitled to remove the plaintiff’s case to federal court because the claims arose from the exercise of their official duties. Chavez v. Colvin 654 F. App’x 374 2016 Authored majority Public Benefits Affirmed: Administrative law judge did not fail to provide adequate reasons for denying Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments. Requena v. Roberts 650 F. App’x 939 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as a disciplinary decision imposed by prison officials was supported by sufficient evidence of battery and attempted assault by the petitioner on a prison guard. Caring Hearts Pers. Home Servs. v. Burwell 824 F.3d 968 2016 Authored majority Administrative Law; Public Benefits Vacated and remanded: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) inappropriately compelled a provider to repay government for services rendered. CMS failed to apply the regulations in force at the time the provider rendered the services, and the provider reasonably believed its services were reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the rules in effect at the time. United States v. Gomez-Olivas 650 F. App’x 631 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: The prisoner was precluded and ineligible to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) because he failed to raise the issue on appeal and his sentence was based on a plea agreement and not the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. CRS-11 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Craine v. NSF 647 F. App’x 871 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Labor & Employment Remanded: National Science Foundation’s order, which denied petitioner’s claim that a university’s termination of his employment constituted illegal retaliation for accusing colleagues of academic misconduct, lacked sufficient analysis or reasoning for appellate review. Freres v. Xyngular 647 F. App’x 861 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Civil Liability Affirmed: Under the invited error doctrine, the district court correctly ruled that the plaintiff cannot challenge a putative error when she had failed to object to proposed jury instructions permitting fees as consequential damages and agreed that the jury should be allowed to determine attorneys’ fees. United States v. Wallace 647 F. App’x 842 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: A typographical error in the indictment did not deny defendant fair notice of the charges or prevent the government from prosecuting the specific crime on which the grand jury indicted. United States v. Arthurs 647 F. App’x 846 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed, remanded for sentencing: District court did not err or abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that circumstantial evidence could be considered and that voluntary intoxication was not a legal defense against possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court also permissibly issued a two-level enhancement in sentencing based on the evidence presented at trial. Harvey v. Segura 646 F. App’x 650 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court correctly determined that the prisoner failed to allege any facts suggesting that the strip search was conducted in an abusive fashion or with excessive force, and, accordingly, failed to plead a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Further, the claims were barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for prison officials acting in their official capacity. Broughton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. 639 F. App’x 574 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 because she did not adequately assert the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, provide a short and plain statement of her claims, identify which claims were asserted against which defendants, or allege specific facts as to how any specific federal law was violated. United States v. Lancaster 646 F. App’x 589 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right because he failed to raise at trial claims of ineffective counsel. CRS-12 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Taylor 639 F. App’x 571 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. Jordan v. Allbaugh 639 F. App’x 569 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right because claims not raised in district court are waived. Johnson v. Okla. Dep’t of Transp. 645 F. App’x 765 2016 Authored majority Civil Rights; Labor & Employment Affirmed: Former employee failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, as the evidence provided a strong inference that the employer’s explanation that plaintiff was dismissed for poor performance was not pretexual. The state officials acting in official capacity were protected from claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Walton v. Powell 821 F.3d 1204 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; First Amendment; Civil Rights Affirmed: A newly elected public official’s qualified immunity claim was properly denied on summary judgment because a former public employee presented sufficient evidence to support her political association retaliation claim; the court on interlocutory appeal could properly assess the facts de novo and not accept as true the facts the district court determined a reasonable jury could find at trial. Kontgis v. Salt Lake City Corp. 645 F. App’x 750 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: City ordinance limiting the standard of review of the city’s employee appeals board did not expressly conflict with the state statutory law that provides a discharged employee a right to appeal, and the employee’s due process rights were not violated as a result of the discharge. Garrett v. Branson Commerce Park Cmty. Improvement Dist. 645 F. App’x 710 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Contracts Affirmed: Plaintiffs’ claim that their conditional guarantees were based on unlawfully discriminatory contracts due to their marital status was properly dismissed because the claim was time-barred under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Gilyard v. Chrisman 644 F. App’x 863 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as his complaints were untimely and no basis existed for statutory or equitable tolling. United States v. Reed 644 F. App’x 847 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court lacked jurisdiction to revise a mandate from the court of appeals that denied the motion to supplement the appellate record, and the reviewing appellate panel similarly lacked the power to revise the ruling of a previous panel. CRS-13 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Estate of Bleck v. City of Alamosa 643 F. App’x 754 2016 Authored majority Civil Liability Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability for a claim that police officers used excessive force when entering a hotel room with their guns drawn. The officers drew their guns in reasonable response to a counselor’s report that his patient was holed up in the room, intoxicated, suicidal, and possibly armed. Further, the court properly denied municipal liability for a gunshot wound that resulted from the officer’s failure to reholster this gun before tackling the plaintiff, as the accident was not the result of faulty training. Vreeland v. Zupan 644 F. App’x 812 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings when the court denied his bail. Du Merac v. Colo. Sch. of Mines 643 F. App’x 709 2016 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Civil Rights Affirmed: Petitioner had not shown a prima facie case of discrimination by the school for suspending him from work after a meritorious sexual harassment claim was brought against him, and the petitioner also had not shown that the school’s proffered reasons for the suspension were pretextual. Gordon v. Farris 644 F. App’x 804 2016 Authored majority Habeas Affirmed: The petitioner-prisoner failed to exhaust state administrative remedies and establish good cause for his procedural defaults in state court; his petition for federal habeas relief challenging a state court petition was untimely. Robinson v. Estrada 637 F. App’x 531 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right because he repeatedly disregarded court deadlines without a colorable excuse. Gilkey v. Marcantel 637 F. App’x 529 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts; Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the prisoner admitted that both suits involved the same alleged “denial of classification” of confinement after segregation ended, and they each were premised on the same alleged violation of a prison policy providing for classification review within five days. United States v. Stout 637 F. App’x 528 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not commit plain error when it calculated the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ range of 5-11 months and properly considered the sentencing factors, applied those factors in imposing its sentence, and provided specific reasons supported by uncontroverted evidence for issuing a sentence above the Guidelines’ range. CRS-14 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Hinson 637 F. App’x 526 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court correctly concluded that no relief is available to reduce the sentence because the binding U.S. Sentencing Guidelines prevented the court from reducing a defendant’s sentence to a term below the amended Guidelines’ range. Lopez v. Roark 637 F. App’x 520 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Prisoner’s Eighth Amendment constitutional rights were not violated by housing him with the general prison population, as there was no evidence that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety. Further, the First Amendment claim that the defendants retaliated against him failed because the prison officials afforded considerable process before he was found guilty of a drug infraction. Fry v. Am. Home Assur. Co. 636 F. App’x 764 2016 Authored majority Contracts; Insurance Affirmed: Summary judgment in favor of an insurance company was affirmed because the insurance policy did not cover death resulting from the employer’s alleged knowing misconduct; the policy covered only bodily injury by accident. United States v. Hernandez-Martinez 637 F. App’x 512 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: Criminal appeal was dismissed pursuant to Anders v. California because there were no nonfrivolous arguments to be made on appeal. United States v. Hai Gan 641 F. App’x 833 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Government presented sufficient evidence at trial to convict the defendant of transferring false identification documents or aiding and abetting their transfer. Aslan v. Colvin 637 F. App’x 509 2016 Authored majority Public Benefits Affirmed: Denial of Social Security disability benefits was affirmed because the claimant failed to point to any medical records confirming that he suffered from a presumptive medical condition; the residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence; and the administrative law judge did not err in relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Wahpekeche v. Colvin 640 F. App’x 781 2016 Authored majority Public Benefits Affirmed: Substantial evidence, including inconsistencies between the claimant’s allegations and the medical records, supported the administrative law judge’s adverse credibility finding in a Social Security disability benefits case; the claimant’s residual functional capacity assessment adequately specified the frequency of her need to alternate sitting and standing. United States v. Brooks 634 F. App’x 669 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. CRS-15 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Anderson 634 F. App’x 666 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Gambrill v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty./Kan. City 636 F. App’x 981 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Reversed and dismissed: After supplemental briefing, the court determined that recent precedent controlled, and it reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the individual defendants and dismissed the Unified Government’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Yazzie 633 F. App’x 703 2016 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Jordanoff v. Lester 628 F. App’x 624 2016 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court committed no error in dismissing claims against the sheriff as outside the statute of limitations and in dismissing claims against the prosecutor on the basis of immunity. United States v. RubioAyala 628 F. App’x 622 2016 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court properly recalculated the defendant’s sentencing range after the sentencing commission amended the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines applicable to his crime. Espinoza v. Ark. Valley Adventures, LLC 809 F.3d 1150 2016 Authored majority Contracts; Civil Liability Affirmed: Summary judgment in favor of a rafting company in a negligence case was affirmed because the release signed by the deceased did not violate Colorado’s public policy that allows private parties to assume certain risks associated with recreational activity. Feinberg v. Comm’r 808 F.3d 813 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts; Civil Rights; Tax Petition denied: In an ongoing tax court case involving marijuana business deductions, a writ of mandamus was not warranted because the petitioners, who alleged that an order to produce the requested discovery violated the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, were not facing irreparable injury without an immediate remedy and they could appeal the final tax court judgment. Ramos-Hernandez v. Lynch 624 F. App’x 677 2015 Authored majority Immigration Petition denied: Immigration judge’s factual finding about the nature of the alien petitioner’s former employment with a company associated with the Guatemalan government, which was relevant to the credibility of the alien’s claim that he suffered past persecution in that country, was legally sustainable because it was based on the substantial record evidence and not premised on a factual mistake. Robinette v. Fender 624 F. App’x 664 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Arguments on appeal were not inadequately presented, and independent scrutiny of the record affirmed the district court’s disposition. CRS-16 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Fogg v. Colvin 622 F. App’x 767 2015 Authored majority Public Benefits; Administrative Law Affirmed: The administrative law judge did not err in denying petitioner’s request for disability benefits and supplemental security income payments; the petitioner’s admission that he is capable of performing heavy work negated a presumption that older claimants with limited education and work experience and severe impairments should be found disabled. McClaflin v. Burd 622 F. App’x 769 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to present any properly preserved arguments on appeal. Jemaneh v. Univ. of Wyoming 622 F. App’x 765 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Even assuming (without granting) the district court erred by permitting successive Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motions to dismiss, the pleadings failed to state a claim. United States v. Falcon-Sanchez 622 F. App’x 766 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court properly recognized that it lacked authority to revise the defendant’s sentence, which was based on his plea agreement and not on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ range that had been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Makkar 810 F.3d 1139 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Federal Courts Vacated and remanded: Despite defendant’s failure to object, the jury instructions given at trial resulted in plain error, because the government conceded that it did not prove the requisite mens rea for a violation of the Controlled Substances Act or the Analogue Act, and the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony that was relevant to defendants’ mens rea. United States v. Davis 622 F. App’x 758 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Remanded: Government conceded that the condition prohibiting Internet use, which the district court had imposed on the criminal defendant as a condition of his supervised released, was in error based on judicial precedent. Duran v. Marathon Asset Mgmt., LP 621 F. App’x 553 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts; Civil Liability; Contracts Affirmed: District court appropriately exercised diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory requirement when punitive damages were considered, but the complaint was properly dismissed because a forum selection clause in an agreement between the parties specified that the venue for disputes would be New York state court. CRS-17 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Avalos-Chavez 621 F. App’x 552 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Defendant’s sentencing could not be revised, because the district court anticipated the amended U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ range at his original sentencing hearing, and the defendant received a sentence well below the range. United States v. Camargo-Chavez 630 F. App’x 835 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: The denial of appellant’s motion to suppress was affirmed because officers had probable cause to open the sealed case of beer based on evidence discovered from the consensual search of the rest of the vehicle. De Niz Robles v. Lynch 803 F.3d 1165 2015 Authored majority Immigration; Administrative Law Petition for review granted and case remanded for further administrative proceedings: A presumption of prospectivity that applies whenever an agency exercises delegated legislative policymaking authority, along with due process and equal protection concerns, prevented the retroactive application of a decision by Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concerning the interplay between two federal immigration statutes, when the effect of that decision would be to deny the availability of relief to a previously eligible alien who applied for relief prior to the decision’s issuance. LTF Real Estate Co. v. Expert S. Tulsa, LLC (In re Expert South Tulsa, LLC) 619 F. App’x 779 2015 Authored majority Bankruptcy; Contracts Affirmed: Funds placed in escrow pursuant to a contract prior to debtor filing for bankruptcy were not part of the bankruptcy estate. Chapman v. Lampert 616 F. App’x 889 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Adams v. Colvin 616 F. App’x 393 2015 Authored majority Public Benefits Affirmed: In denying a claim for Social Security disability benefits, the administrative law judge had sufficient evidence to support findings regarding the claimant’s residual functional capacity to return to work as an electronic scanner operator, and the claimant failed to meet her burden to establish that she is unable to perform her past relevant work. Rader v. Comm’r 616 F. App’x 391 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: U.S. Tax Court committed no clear error when it held that the defendant was liable for unpaid taxes and penalties. CRS-18 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Muathe v. Fifth Third Bank 627 F. App’x 732 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to provide the defendants with fair notice of the claims against them and the relevant facts underlying those claims because, among other things, the plaintiff failed to connect alleged facts in any fairly discernible way to the legal claims. Perez-Carrera v. Stancil 616 F. App’x 371 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Prisoner was not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241 because he could not establish that 28 U.S.C. §2255’s remedy was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Barrera-Estrada v. United States 616 F. App’x 371 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel when he entered his guilty plea. United States v. Spring 614 F. App’x 386 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of audita querela to reverse his federal sentence, as other remedies supplied the exclusive means for petitioner to challenge his conviction and sentence collaterally. United States v. Handy 614 F. App’x 379 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. United States v. McAlpine 613 F. App’x 766 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: There was no error in the district court’s decision not to reduce the defendant’s sentence as a result of a change in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines when the defendant was already given a sentence below the recommended guideline range. Stauffer v. Blair 613 F. App’x 760 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain federal suits that amount to appeals of state-court judgments. Patriot Mfg., LLC v. Hartwig, Inc. 613 F. App’x 753 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Appellant failed to argue that estoppel was unwarranted when responding to the motion for summary judgment in district court and forfeited his right to challenge the judgment. United States v. Butler 611 F. App’x 517 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Prisoner waived his challenge to the district court’s decision to deny his request to revise his sentence because he failed, among other things, to state his basis for challenging the court’s decision. CRS-19 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley 627 F. App’x 682 2015 Authored majority Intellectual Property; Civil Liability Affirmed: District court did not err in ruling that General Steel was entitled to relief under the Lanham Act after its competitor, Armstrong, produced false advertising to boost its reputation and give it a competitive edge. Nor did the court err in ordering the defendant to disgorge profits made during that period, and placing the burden on the defendant to show which profits weren’t attributable to its Lanham Act violations. Carlson v. Pryor 611 F. App’x 514 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. Serna v. Commandant 608 F. App’x 713 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court correctly held that the prisoner had not demonstrated a lawful cause excusing his failure to pursue his present claims before the military’s appellate courts, a prerequisite to seeking habeas relief in federal court. United States v. Mendez 618 F. App’x 930 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for ineffective assistance of counsel claim given that the appellant failed to seek and obtain a certificate of appealability. There was no error in the conviction based on the supporting evidence and the jury instructions, because the defendant’s counsel expressly stipulated to the instruction in question or the instructions were based on judicial precedent. United States v. Mackay 610 F. App’x 797 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: In a remanded case, the district court’s order vacating defendant’s two convictions for distributing a controlled substance that resulted in death was affirmed because, while the appellate mandate allowed the district court to reconsider only defendant’s sentence, not his convictions, the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Burrage v. United States modified the controlling legal authority. Energy & Env’t Legal Inst. v. Epel 793 F.3d 1169 2015 Authored majority Environmental Law Affirmed: Colorado law that required electricity generators to ensure that 20% of electricity sold to state consumers comes from renewable sources did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause; the law did not involve a discriminatory price control statute, a discriminatory act linking prices in Colorado to those paid out of state, or other types of price discrimination against out-of-state entities. CRS-20 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Loveridge v. Hall (In re Renewable Energy Dev. Corp.) 792 F.3d 1274 2015 Authored majority Bankruptcy; Civil Liability; Federal Courts Vacated and remanded: District court’s decision to send to an Article I bankruptcy court a lawsuit that alleged that a bankruptcy trustee breached professional duties was unconstitutional, as the parties were entitled to have the case resolved by an Article III court. None of the state law claims necessarily could have been resolved in the bankruptcy claims allowance process, and the plaintiff did not consent to suit in a non-Article III court. Elnicki v. Kansas 609 F. App’x 542 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. United States v. Jenkins 608 F. App’x 710 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: Because the prisoner pled guilty to a federal drug offense and expressly waived his right to appeal any sentence up to the statutory maximum, he could not appeal a certain condition of supervised release. United States v. Fishman 608 F. App’x 711 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. Mata v. Jackson Cty. Third Judicial Dist. Court 611 F. App’x 513 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah 790 F.3d 1000 2015 Authored majority Indian Law; Criminal Law & Procedure Reversed: A tribe was entitled to temporarily enjoin state and county officials from prosecuting tribal members for crimes allegedly committed on Indian land. The tribe’s success on the merits was likely based on previous judicial decisions that determined tribal land boundaries; a threat to tribal sovereignty was irreparable harm; on balance the harms to tribal self-government outweigh the state and county’s interest in prosecuting tribal members on tribal land; and the Anti-Injunction Act authorized enjoining a state court proceeding to effectuate a previous federal judgment. CCPS Transp., LLC v. Sloan 611 F. App’x 931 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Appeal dismissed: District court improperly issued a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification for interlocutory appeal of a declaration of rights under a contested easement, because Rule 54(b) permits certification only for single claims in multiclaim cases. No other cause of action remained in the case because the plaintiffs’ request for other remedies arising from the same alleged violation are not considered separate claims. CRS-21 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Backcountry Hunters & Anglers v. U.S. Forest Serv. 612 F. App’x 934 2015 Authored majority Environmental Law; Federal Courts Dismissed: The petition for review was dismissed for lack of standing because the advocacy organization seeking to reduce vehicle access to a national park would not be redressed by a favorable decision. Beers v. Maye 611 F. App’x 933 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court properly denied the prisoner’s request to credit against his federal sentence the time he spent in Nebraska state prisons because federal sentences presumptively run consecutively to (not concurrently with) state prison terms. United States v. Gutierrez-Carranza 604 F. App’x 750 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a term of supervised release upon defendant, despite the likelihood that defendant would be deported or extradited to Mexico after his incarceration, because the record showed that he previously defied one deportation order and that he possesses a violent criminal history. Kenney v. Oklahoma 601 F. App’x 761 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts; Labor & Employment Affirmed: The complaint failed to set forth factual allegations from which the court could infer some plausible basis for relief. Brown v. McCollum 600 F. App’x 630 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. Farris v. Frazier 599 F. App’x 851 2015 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies for any of his claims, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, through the Oklahoma Department of Corrections grievance process. United States v. Rogers 599 F. App’x 850 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Chavez v. Franco 609 F. App’x 527 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Franco v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs 609 F. App’x 957 2015 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claims against the Board of County Commissioners and public employees were properly dismissed on summary judgment because he failed to show they intentionally confined him with knowledge that they lacked lawful authority to do so. CRS-22 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Herrera 782 F.3d 571 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Reversed and remanded: District court erred in granting the motion to suppress because its factual findings about misstatements in the warrant application were erroneous, and the court did not assess whether, without the alleged misstatements, probable cause supported the warrant. ACAP Fin., Inc. v. U.S. SEC 783 F.3d 763 2015 Authored majority Administrative Law; Civil Liability Petition for review denied: Fines levied by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (and sustained by the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]) against a penny stock brokerage firm, as well as the firm’s head trader and compliance manager, for violating federal securities laws were not excessive for exceeding the commission the firm earned on its unlawful stock sales, given that profit is only one factor the SEC considers when imposing a sanction. Additionally, the trader’s six-month suspension from the securities industry—allowed for in egregious cases—was permissible because the SEC could expand its definition of egregious in its review, and the sanction was comparable to similar cases. Alejandre-Gallegos v. Holder 598 F. App’x 604 2015 Authored majority Immigration; Federal Courts Petition for review dismissed: Petitioner’s counsel’s failure to comply with several federal rules of appellate procedure warranted dismissal of the petition to review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision to deny cancellation of removal. Additionally, the court clerk was directed to initiate disciplinary hearings against counsel. Vigil v. Morgan 598 F. App’x 594 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not err when it dismissed a claim under the Eighth Amendment for inadequate medical care because the prison officials’ actions that allegedly delayed his access to treatment for hemorrhoids did not exhibit “deliberate indifference” or result in substantial harm. David v. Sirius Comput. Sols., Inc. 779 F.3d 1209 2015 Authored majority Civil Liability Remanded: Plaintiff who was awarded damages relating to economic losses or injuries for a negligent misrepresentation claim was entitled to prejudgment interest because state statute permitted interest in any action seeking compensation for personal injury without consideration to nature of compensatory damages the jury awarded. CRS-23 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Walters v. Colvin 604 F. App’x 643 2015 Authored majority Public Benefits Affirmed: Substantial evidence supported administrative law judge’s adverse credibility determination for Social Security disability benefits because, among other things, claimant did not seek treatment for his neurological disorder until two years after diagnosis; claimant’s claims of illness were not supported by medical evidence; and there was evidence that he went camping, canoeing, and rock climbing despite his claim of total disability. United States v. Scott 594 F. App’x 560 2015 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not present newly discovered evidence suggesting his innocence or identify a new rule of constitutional law retroactively applicable to his case to warrant a second or successive collateral challenge to his sentence. Pippin v. Elbert Cty. 604 F. App’x 636 2015 Authored majority First Amendment Affirmed: District court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of county commissioners was affirmed because the commissioners had a reasonable basis for seeking the protective order and did not infringe on the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Calvert v. Denham 594 F. App’x 545 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not err in its calculations for the prisoner’s good time credit to determine his release date. Macias v. Holder 590 F. App’x 829 2015 Authored majority Immigration Affirmed: The Board of Immigration Appeals correctly denied as untimely the petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings to adjust status or for deferred action, and equitable tolling was not warranted because he had not shown that he was prevented from filing in a timely fashion. Tarpley v. Colvin 601 F. App’x 641 2015 Authored majority Public Benefits Affirmed: Claimant was properly denied Social Security disability benefits because substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision to reject the opinions of claimant’s treating physicians, and the judge did not err in affording significant weight to the opinion of the nontreating agency physician. Banks v. Am. Baptist Churches 594 F. App’x 544 2015 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court did not err when it dismissed appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim, as the appellants’ briefs failed to list any issues for appeal, did not explain why the district court erred in dismissing their claims, and lacked citations to authority. CRS-24 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Miller v. Scott 592 F. App’x 747 2015 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies through the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) grievance process for his claims. The ODOC did not violate the prisoner’s constitutional rights when the prison chaplain denied his requests for a halal or a kosher diet after failing to contest the finding that the prisoner’s voluntary food purchases at the prison canteen belied his claim of a sincere religious scruple about his diet. Lee v. Maye 589 F. App’x 416 2015 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: District court did not err in dismissing the prisoner’s action as frivolous; the conclusory assertions in the filings as to the conditions of his confinement were baseless. United States v. Denson 775 F.3d 1214 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Based on the circumstances of the case, police officers lawfully entered the defendant’s home and conducted a protective sweep such that the firearms seized during the sweep did not need to be suppressed. Notwithstanding the officers’ warrantless use of Doppler radar (before entering the home) to detect human breathing and movement inside the home, the officers had specific and articulable reasons to initiate a protective sweep. Finally, the officers had probable cause to believe that the seized firearms were contraband. Myers v. Knight Protective Serv. 774 F.3d 1246 2014 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Civil Rights; Public Benefits Affirmed: Plaintiff’s representations in his application for Social Security disability benefits belied his claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because they showed he could not perform the essential job functions of an armed security guard with or without a reasonable accommodation. Brown v. Metro. Tulsa Transit Auth. 588 F. App’x 849 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: The record supported the district court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to offer proof of anything more than nominal damages related to his overturned ban from riding public buses. United States v. Truby 588 F. App’x 847 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: Criminal appeal was dismissed pursuant to Anders v. California because there were no nonfrivolous arguments to be made on appeal. CRS-25 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Storey 595 F. App’x 822 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Fourth Amendment did not protect against searches performed by private FedEx employees when the state did not coerce or demand the search. The court did not commit sentencing error by holding the defendant responsible for all the drugs found inside the packages or by imposing a sentence within the range contemplated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Bruton v. United States 587 F. App’x 504 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: The appellant’s brief failed to directly address the district court’s ruling and did not identify any defect in it. Green v. Patton 587 F. App’x 503 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. United States v. Sabillon-Umana 772 F.3d 1328 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Remand for resentencing: District court erred by starting with a conclusion about the appropriate U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range for the criminal defendant involved in a drug conspiracy before it had considered the facts surrounding the defendant’s role in the conspiracy, which properly inform an assessment of the appropriate guidelines range. The district court also erroneously concluded that the government, rather than the court, has the power to determine the appropriate sentencing reward for a defendant who provided assistance to the government. Mattox v. McKune 588 F. App’x 833 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. United States v. Taylor 585 F. App’x 751 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not err in determining sentencing based on the defendant’s history, the need to protect the public, and other appropriate considerations under existing law. Yarbary v. Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP 584 F. App’x 918 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court did not err in dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff failed to state a claim supported by facts even after four rounds of amendment. Gregory v. Denham 581 F. App’x 728 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner failed to petition the appropriate court of appeals. CRS-26 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Nowlin v. United States 581 F. App’x 722 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Indian Law; Habeas Affirmed: Writ of coram nobis to set aside the petitioner’s conviction was denied because there was sufficient evidence that confirmed his status as an “Indian” to support the federal assault conviction by an “Indian” against “another Indian or other person” within “Indian country.” Lee v. Maye 581 F. App’x 721 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner failed to petition the appropriate court of appeals. Silva v. Colvin 580 F. App’x 678 2014 Authored majority Public Benefits; Civil Rights Affirmed: Application of res judicata was not flawed; providing notice of time to appeal only in English did not violate due process because petitioner’s inability to understand the notice was readily remediable by obtaining an accurate translation at her Social Security office. Veren v. United States 575 F. App’x 841 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Affective disorder and clinical depression were not sufficient to establish mental incompetence under the standard required to toll the statute of limitations for the plaintiff’s damages suit. Garcia v. Lind 574 F. App’x 857 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. Morgan v. Addison 574 F. App’x 852 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. McKay v. Hayes 577 F. App’x 848 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court did not err in dismissing the case because the appellant failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Kobel v. Lansing Corr. Facility 577 F. App’x 844 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not err in denying request to reinstate claims because, even if the plaintiff did not receive court notices to correct his complaint after changing addresses, nothing prevented him from apprising the court of his new location or inquiring about his lawsuit. Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v. NLRB 765 F.3d 1198 2014 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Administrative Law Petition for review denied: Employer’s threat to hire permanent replacements during a lockout resulting from stalled collectivebargaining negotiations violated 29 U.S.C. §158(a)(1), but, because the employer did not follow through on the threat, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was not required to hold the lockout unlawful and award back pay. Rather, the NLRB’s order directing the company to desist from future threats and posting a notice promising the same was sufficient. CRS-27 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Nouri v. Farris 585 F. App’x 944 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. Oliver v. Cline 573 F. App’x 814 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. United States v. LeeSpeight 576 F. App’x 801 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC 763 F.3d 1252 2014 Authored majority Environmental Law Vacated and remanded: Mineral rights leaseholder could cross the surface owner’s estate to service a well in an adjacent surface estate owned by the government, because, pursuant to a unitization agreement, the leaseholder could reenter and occupy so much of the surface in the unitized area as might be reasonably incident to extracting minerals from the unit. MHC Mut. Conversion Fund, L.P. v. Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. 761 F.3d 1109 2014 Authored majority Civil Liability; Federal Courts Affirmed: Plaintiff company failed to state a claim for relief because the security issuers’ failed market predictions were insufficient to allege that they made false or misleading statements under Sections 11 and 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. Griffin v. Smith 572 F. App’x 625 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court did not err in dismissing prisoner’s complaints for failure to state a claim. Chavez-Vasquez v. Holder 572 F. App’x 627 2014 Authored majority Immigration; Federal Courts Petition for review denied: Petitioner became subject to removal upon his conviction, and his pending motion in state court seeking to vacate his conviction does not preclude his removal. Jones v. Kansas 572 F. App’x 648 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Federal Courts Affirmed: District court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the motion did not identify exceptional circumstances warranting relief and, instead, tried to relitigate the merits of his 42 U.S.C. §1983 suit. United States v. Ramsey 572 F. App’x 604 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. United States v. Hendrix 571 F. App’x 661 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. CRS-28 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Trugreen Cos., LLC v. Mower Bros. 570 F. App’x 775 2014 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Contracts; Federal Courts Affirmed: District court correctly denied attorneys’ fees and costs to former employees of TruGreen based in Utah, because their new employer paid for those costs and TruGreen, by contract, was liable only for costs that the employees incurred in the lawsuit. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the former employees based in Idaho only the amount they specified as the costs their attorneys paid toward their defense and not fees the attorneys otherwise charged. Van De Weghe v. Chambers 569 F. App’x 617 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Federal Courts Affirmed: Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on charges of malicious prosecution because probable cause existed to pursue at least one charge against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not identify any clearly established law suggesting that a claim for malicious prosecution is actionable when other additional charges arising from the same set of facts are not supported by probable cause. Also, the district attorney was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state. Ali v. Wingert 569 F. App’x 562 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; First Amendment Affirmed: Prisoner’s right to exercise his sincere religious beliefs under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was not violated by prison mail room staff, who required him, when sending and receiving mail, to use the name he had when he was initially incarcerated alongside the religious name he adopted thereafter. Barrett v. Salt Lake City 754 F.3d 864 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Labor & Employment Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part: The county could not dispute the jury’s finding of unlawful employment retaliation using the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green; intervening Supreme Court case law did not upset the jury’s verdict; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the county to reinstate the plaintiff’s preretaliatory demotion pay grade as an equitable remedy. However, the district court’s award of fees incurred during an optional, internal grievance process was improper because that process was not a prerequisite to suit. Carr v. Miller 563 F. App’x 656 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. CRS-29 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Hwang v. Kan. State Univ. 753 F.3d 1159 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Labor & Employment Affirmed: Plaintiff’s former employer did not violate the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to allow her to take more than six months of sick leave because an absence of that length would not allow her to perform her essential job functions (teaching at a university) and did not qualify as a reasonable accommodation for her disability (cancer treatment). United States v. Reese 559 F. App’x 777 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Criminal Law & Procedure Reversed and remanded: Government acknowledged that plaintiff’s federal conviction for being a felon unlawfully in possession of firearms was unsustainable because his civil rights had been restored, including the right to vote, serve on a jury, seek public office, and possess firearms under state law. United States v. Chon 559 F. App’x 779 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings, nor was a successive collateral proceeding justified. Lube v. NCO Fin. Servs. 566 F. App’x 713 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: There was no reversible error in the district court’s decision to deny a motion for reconsideration, and the deadline for appeal to the original dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit passed. Genberg v. Porter 566 F. App’x 719 2014 Authored majority Labor & Employment Affirmed: The arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement did not apply to claims against the employer’s senior directors, board of directors, and outside counsel. Hogan v. Utah Telecomm. Open Infrastructure Agency 566 F. App’x 636 2014 Authored majority Civil Liability; Labor & Employment Affirmed in part and remanded in part: Utah state law wrongful discharge claim applied to all employees, not only at-will employees. Robles v. RMS Mgmt. Solutions, LLC 565 F. App’x 718 2014 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: Other than the Supreme Court, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from final state court judgments deciding federal questions under Supreme Court doctrine in Rooker v. Feldman. Duran v. Att’y Gen. of New Mexico 565 F. App’x 719 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Defense counsel’s decision not to consider a psychologist’s report suggesting that the defendant was not on his antipsychotic medication at the time of the crime did not amount to a denial of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Stirling v. Stirling 565 F. App’x 676 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Pro se plaintiff failed to state a claim for violation of her constitutional rights against her ex-husband and new wife under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the defendants were not state actors. CRS-30 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Taber v. Farris 565 F. App’x 677 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. Crabtree v. Oklahoma 564 F. App’x 402 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Individual convicted of sexually abusing two children failed to state a claim against the State of Oklahoma under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. 748 F.3d 975 2014 Authored majority Civil Liability Vacated and remanded: When there are material facts as to whether the parties intended to arbitrate the dispute, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the court to hold a summary trial on the issue before proceeding to trial on the merits. United States v. Bergman 746 F.3d 1128 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Vacated and remanded: After defendant’s conviction was vacated for ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to permit a new trial without first finding that the circumstances made it impossible for the defendant to obtain effective assistance in a retrial. Lawrence v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 560 F. App’x 791 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Labor & Employment Affirmed: District court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §1981 when there was no showing of municipal liability and an independent arbitrator found the termination of employment was warranted. Lately v. Colvin 560 F. App’x 751 2014 Authored majority Public Benefits; Administrative Law Affirmed: The administrative law judge did not commit reversible error in denying petitioner’s request for disability and supplemental security benefits after determining that, although she suffered from vestibular disorder, depression, and panic disorder, the petitioner retained residual functional capacity to perform a restricted range of light work, including her past jobs. United States v. Arrowgarp 558 F. App’x 824 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby 744 F.3d 1183 2014 Authored majority Civil Liability; Intellectual Property Affirmed: There was no error in awarding $2.92 million as damages because Utah law allowed for reasonable royalties as damages for misappropriation of trade secrets, and there was no error in the admission of the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert. Coats v. Utah 557 F. App’x 795 2014 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Federal Courts Affirmed: The Utah Department of Workforce Services did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for alleged violations of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. CRS-31 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Brown 555 F. App’x 838 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: A traffic stop was not extended beyond the period permitted by the Fourth Amendment when the officer detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant’s car and took further investigative action, and subsequent events provided the officer with probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle. United States v. Herrera-Cruz 555 F. App’x 831 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel or otherwise denied a constitutional right. United States v. Baldwin 745 F.3d 1027 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Administrative Law Affirmed: Federal regulations prohibiting disobeying a federal police officer and disrupting performance of official duties constituted valid criminal prohibitions, were not unconstitutionally vague, and were subject to a “knowingly” mens rea for which there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant; and the lack of proof of “posted” notice of the regulations was not plain error by the district court. Dixon v. Colvin 556 F. App’x 681 2014 Authored majority Administrative Law; Public Benefits Affirmed: Administrative law judge’s decision that plaintiff was not entitled to certain Social Security disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards. Winfield v. Utah 556 F. App’x 669 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: When the defendant, who was convicted in a state court criminal proceeding, asserted arguments that were procedurally barred under the law of the state in which he was convicted, federal courts could not consider the barred arguments in habeas proceedings. United States v. Escobar 554 F. App’x 711 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: Admission of statements allegedly made prior to a Miranda warning did not constitute grounds for reversal of a conviction when it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that any putative Miranda error did not contribute to the jury verdict. Defazio v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. 554 F. App’x 692 2014 Authored majority Labor & Employment Affirmed: Former at-will employee’s claims for wrongful termination were correctly dismissed because, under Colorado law, an at-will employment relationship generally can be terminated for any reason, and no exceptions applied. Moral v. Hagen 553 F. App’x 839 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights; Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: District court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that her arrest violated her First and Fourth Amendment rights on qualified immunity grounds when the undisputed material facts showed there was probable cause for the arrest. CRS-32 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Lin Yan v. Holder 559 F. App’x 658 2014 Authored majority Immigration Petition for review dismissed in part and denied in part: An alien was properly denied asylum when there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that he was not credible and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies related to his claim of denial of due process. Sanders v. Miller 555 F. App’x 750 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. United States v. Contreras-Hernandez 552 F. App’x 850 2014 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: There was no error by the district in ordering a 24-month sentence for the criminal defendant even though the government recommended an 18-month sentence when the defendant had, among other relevant factors, a record of recidivism. Martinez v. Williams 553 F. App’x 806 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. Lollis v. Archuleta 553 F. App’x 798 2014 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. Yellowbear v. Lampert 741 F.3d 48 2014 Authored majority First Amendment; Indian Law Vacated and remanded: On a motion for summary judgment, the Colorado prison had not met its burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 to show that it could deny a Native American inmate access to a sweat lodge for use as part of the inmate’s religious practice. Simon v. Jones 550 F. App’x 670 2014 Authored majority Civil Rights Certificate of appealability denied: District court correctly concluded that prison officials properly revoked an inmate’s administrative privileges and did not deny the inmate’s constitutional rights based on the evidence of the case. United States v. Madrid-Apodaca 556 F. App’x 664 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: When the defendant pled guilty and agreed to a sentence of between two and eight months, the district court did not err in ordering a nine-month sentence based on applicable sentencing factors, including the record of recidivism and need for deterrence. Amerson v. United States 550 F. App’x 603 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights; Federal Courts Denied and dismissed: A prisoner’s state court action against his warden and other defendants based on the Uniform Commercial Code was without merit and constituted a frivolous filing under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. CRS-33 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding United States v. Green 548 F. App’x 557 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: The defendant, who was convicted on federal drug charges, did not make a substantial showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ali v. Province 550 F. App’x 619 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights; Federal Courts Affirmed: District court correctly dismissed an inmate’s claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 when the inmate’s counsel failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment and the inmate did not exhaust administrative remedies. United States v. Gomez 550 F. App’x 613 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: When the defendant pled guilty to participating in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy, there was no error on the part of the district court in its determination of the applicable advisory sentencing guidelines or imposition of a sentence within the range of the guidelines. United States v. Pursley 550 F. App’x 575 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: The defendant did not make a substantial showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. Arellano v. Medina 547 F. App’x 912 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. Gardner v. Arrowichis 543 F. App’x 891 2013 Authored majority Habeas; Indian Law Affirmed: District court properly dismissed petitioners’ request for habeas relief against tribal officials when it was unclear whether the petitioners were in custody of the tribal officials and the petitioners did not comply with the court’s order to file a new pleading that more clearly described the essential facts. United States v. Castillo-Najer 541 F. App’x 895 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: After he was convicted for aiding in the distribution of marijuana, the defendant did not present sufficient basis to mandate a new trial. United States v. Harris 735 F.3d 1187 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: No Fourth Amendment violation occurred when law enforcement officers discovered an illegal gun and drugs belonging to the defendant in the course of carrying out a valid warrant to search defendant’s property for evidence of a different crime. CRS-34 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Blackmon v. Sutton 734 F.3d 1237 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed in part and reversed in part: Juvenile detention officials were properly denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim based on the use of a restraining chair for purely punitive purposes and on denial of access to mental health medical care, but the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support his failure-to-transfer claim against the detention facility director. Roberts v. IBM 733 F.3d 1306 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights; Labor & Employment Affirmed: The evidence supported the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the plaintiff’s claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and state tort law. Fitzgerald v. United States Bank 537 F. App’x 811 2013 Authored majority Contracts Affirmed: In a claim for breach of contract and other civil claims, the district court properly considered the relevant contracts and dismissed the complaint when the plaintiffs’ claims were inconsistent with the contracts at issue. United States v. Zaler 537 F. App’x 808 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability was untimely and was properly denied. Zisumbo v. Ogden Reg’l Med. Ctr. 536 F. App’x 832 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add a new legal theory because it was untimely, and it correctly dismissed plaintiff’s subsequently filed second lawsuit asserting that new theory based on the rule against claim-splitting. Hess v. Trammell 535 F. App’x 765 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied and appeals dismissed: Criminal defendant failed to establish that his convictions were attributable to ineffective assistance of counsel, and there was no error in the district court’s decision to deny appointment of counsel in the habeas petition. United States v. Martinez 543 F. App’x 770 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: There was no error in the district court’s decision to apply the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months in jail for a guilty plea for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and the criminal appeal was dismissed pursuant to Anders v. California because there were no nonfrivolous arguments to be made on appeal. CRS-35 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Ferguson v. Shinseki 543 F. App’x 750 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights; Labor & Employment Affirmed: When the undisputed record demonstrated that the plaintiff was not qualified for the job for which she applied, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claim for discrimination on the basis of gender. Warner v. Ed Bozarth Chevrolet 533 F. App’x 861 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: When a pro se plaintiff chose to use a facsimile transmission to deliver a pleading without any cover sheet, time stamp, or certificate of service, she assumed the risk that it would not be timely delivered and that her case would be dismissed. United States v. Goodwin 541 F. App’x 851 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. United States v. Willis 533 F. App’x 849 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: The defendant’s motion to suppress was correctly denied because law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and question the defendant. United States v. Summers 539 F. App’x 877 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: After a conviction for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, the petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel. Sudduth v. Raemisch 532 F. App’x 823 2013 Authored majority Habeas Affirmed: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 731 F.3d 1064 2013 Authored majority Civil Liability Affirmed: Microsoft’s decision to withdraw certain previously extended information that would have allowed developers to create, prior to the release of the Windows 95 operating system, applications that would be compatible with that system did not amount to anticompetitive behavior under the Sherman Act, and the district court correctly entered a directed verdict in favor of Microsoft on that claim. Dale K. Barker Co., P.C. v. Plaza 541 F. App’x 810 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: The date of filing of an amended complaint, adding a defendant in his individual capacity, related back to the date of original filing, and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in other contested rulings. CRS-36 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Fletcher v. United States 730 F.3d 1206 2013 Authored majority Indian Law Reversed: Members of the Osage tribe had a statutory right to compel the government to provide an accounting of the funds held by the government in trust pursuant to a 1906 law that directed royalties earned by the mineral estate in lands belonging to the Osage tribe to be held in trust with a portion to be distributed to tribe members. United States v. Washington F. App’x 810 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: A damaged cell phone left in a hotel bathroom after checkout time was properly treated as abandoned; therefore, the phone could be admitted as evidence in a criminal prosecution even though it was obtained in a warrantless search of the hotel room. Lopez v. Holder 532 F. App’x 797 2013 Authored majority Immigration Petition for review denied: A Guatemalan citizen’s request to reopen his deportation proceedings for the third time was correctly dismissed as untimely and “number barred.” Shue v. Custis 531 F. App’x 941 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against his former public defender and the attorney’s former employer failed as a matter of law because the public defender did not act under color of state law, as required for recovery under the statute, while providing legal assistance to a client accused of criminal wrongdoing. Niemi v. Lasshofer 728 F.3d 1252 2013 Authored majority Civil Liability; Federal Courts Vacated and remanded: District court erred in granting a preliminary injunction freezing certain defendants’ assets and ordering them to deposit $2.18 million in escrow because the plaintiffs lacked standing under the state statute that potentially authorized the injunctive relief. Buck v. CF&I Steel, L.P. 531 F. App’x 936 2013 Authored majority Labor & Employment Affirmed: District court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact to support a possible breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and the union did not act in a discriminatory, dishonest, arbitrary, or perfunctory fashion. Rodriguez v. Colorado 531 F. App’x 921 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: The district court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s case when, after the pro se plaintiff filed three different complaints that did not meet minimum pleading standards, the district court offered the opportunity for the filing of a fourth version of the complaint, and the plaintiff allowed two months to pass without filing a new pleading. CRS-37 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Keeler v. ARAMARK 536 F. App’x 771 2013 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Civil Rights Affirmed: The employer offered legitimate, nonretaliatory, and nonpretextual reasons for firing the plaintiff, including intimidation of coworkers, a threatened riot, and refusal to cooperate with investigations, and there was no error by the district court in refusing to allow the plaintiff’s state law civil claims to proceed to trial. Genova v. Banner Health 734 F.3d 1095 2013 Authored majority Health Law & Civil Liability Affirmed: An emergency room doctor who claimed his superiors terminated him for reporting overcrowded emergency room conditions in which patients should have been transported to other hospitals did not present a valid claim for violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s state law tort and contract claims. United States v. Munoz-Pena 530 F. App’x 846 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure; Immigration Affirmed: The convicted criminal defendant’s sentence of 56 months in prison for unlawfully reentering the United States was less than the range suggested under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and the district court did not err by taking into consideration crimes committed within 10 years of the defendant’s act of reentry or by choosing not to further depart downward from the advisory sentencing range. Singleton v. Ploughe 530 F. App’x 843 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: When a pro se inmate attempted to seek relief from a district court without first filing a complaint and opening a civil case, and did not abide by the court’s instructions on how to correctly file within 30 days, the district court properly dismissed the case. Decker v. Roberts 530 F. App’x 844 2103 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied and appeal dismissed: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel or otherwise denied a constitutional right. United States v. Esquivel-Rios 725 F.3d 1231 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Remanded: District court should have conducted further fact-finding with regard to whether the officer had reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop based on the lack of a valid vehicle registration, when the stop was based on a database that “usually” did not return accurate vehicle registration information, but the defendant’s remaining objections to admission of evidence and the conduct of the trial were either without merit or harmless error. CRS-38 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores LP 517 F. Appx’ 635 2013 Authored majority Civil Liability Reversed and remanded: Following an answer by the Colorado Supreme Court to a question certified to it by the Tenth Circuit concerning the scope of liability under a Colorado statute at issue in the case, district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the state court ruling. Wood v. Milyard 721 F.3d 1190 2013 Authored majority Habeas; Criminal Law & Procedure Remanded: The convicted criminal defendant’s constitutional arguments were not procedurally barred in a federal habeas petition based on the state law procedural rules in effect at the time of conviction and appeal; the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited simultaneous convictions for first and second degree murder in a case involving the death of a single victim conviction; further proceedings were necessary to determine which conviction should be terminated; but the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment claim for a right to a jury trial during prior proceedings. Jensen v. Solvay Chems. 721 F.3d 1180 2014 Authored majority Insurance; Contracts Affirmed: The retirement plan administrator and sponsor’s failure to meet statutory notice requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was not “egregious” within the meaning of the act, and therefore the plaintiffs were not permitted to a restoration of certain lost retirement benefits as a remedy. Montano-Vega v. Holder 721 F.3d 1175 2013 Authored majority Immigration Affirmed: A federal regulation which deemed appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals abandoned if the appellant leaves the country was not inconsistent with federal statute and did not violate the petitioner’s due process rights. United States v. Nelson 517 F. App’x 619 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: There was no error in the district court’s sentencing of an individual who pled guilty to sexual abuse of his minor daughter. Osborn v. Lampert 516 F. App’x 712 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights Affirmed: An inmate had not been denied a constitutional right to access to courts as a result of an allegedly inadequate prison library when he could not show an actual injury resulting from the prison’s library policy. United States v. Dyke 718 F.3d 1282 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: A government’s undercover sting operation was not “outrageous government conduct” that violated the defendants’ due process rights. CRS-39 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Acker v. Dinwiddie 516 F. App’x 692 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. Jenner v. Faulk 516 F. App’x 691 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and did not qualify for equitable tolling. United States v. Bly 518 F. App’x 599 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: The convicted defendant was not entitled to a reduction in his sentence because the postsentencing change in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines did not apply to his convictions. Goosby v. Trammell 515 F. App’x 776 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was time-barred. Whitmore v. Parker 525 F. App’x 865 2013 Authored majority Habeas; Criminal Law & Procedure Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings and failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 arising from his treatment while incarcerated. United States v. Petersen 525 F. App’x 808 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Reversed and remanded: At the time of the search of defendant’s vehicle, law enforcement officers had probable cause to believe a burglary had been committed, and evidence gathered during the search should not have been suppressed. United States v. Bell 526 F. App’x 880 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: District court correctly dismissed the petitioner’s motion to reconsider a prior denial of his attempt to attack a state court criminal conviction collaterally because the motion to reconsider was not filed within a reasonable time. Heinrich v. City of Casper 526 F. App’x 862 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts; Civil Rights Affirmed: Designation as a corporate designee for a deposition on behalf of a municipality, on its own accord, does not render an individual a final policymaker in such a manner that the deponent can formulate an official municipal policy or custom sufficient to create liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983. United States v. AvitiaBustamante 514 F. App’x 827 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings, and there was no plain error in the district court’s sentence of 46 months in prison for a guilty plea of reentering the country unlawfully under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) CRS-40 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Palmerin v. Johnson Cty. 524 F. App’x 431 2013 Authored majority Labor & Employment; Civil Liability Affirmed: District court did not err in entering judgment against the at-will employee plaintiff on his state law retaliation claim under Kansas law. United States v. Chapman 521 F. App’x 710 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: There was no error in the district court’s decision to issue a 70-month sentence to a former employee of the New Mexico Department of Corrections who pled guilty to soliciting bribes in a case in which the defendant’s efforts to prevent a witness from speaking to investigators and to mask bribes as loans constituted obstruction of justice. United States v. Mills 514 F. App’x 769 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. United States v. Cornelio-Legarda 514 F. App’x 771 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied constitutionally effective counsel or otherwise denied a constitutional right. Carani v. Meisner 521 F. App’x 640 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts; Civil Rights Affirmed: District court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the constitutionally based false arrest and false imprisonment claims because law enforcement officials had probable cause for the arrest; the remaining claims in the complaint either were not cognizable or not supported by sufficient facts to state a claim on which relief could be granted; and the award of attorney fees to certain defendants was not erroneous. United States v. Johnson 565 F. App’x 771 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: When a defendant, who was serving a term of a supervised relief for a prior criminal conviction, was arrested and pled guilty to new criminal drug charges, the district court did not err in its decision to impose consecutive sentences for the new drug offense and for violation of the supervised relief. United States v. Alter 512 F. App’x 744 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Appeal dismissed: Criminal appeal was dismissed pursuant to Anders v. California because there were no nonfrivolous arguments to be made on appeal. CRS-41 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Dude 708 F.3d 1191 2013 Authored majority Civil Liability Affirmed: The plaintiff title company justifiably relied on the defendants’ representations that there were no preexisting liens on a parcel of property, and its reliance was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the defendants were liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. Ciempa v. Jones 511 F. App’x 781 2013 Authored majority First Amendment Affirmed: There was no reversible error in the district court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-inmate’s claims alleging violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) because, among other reasons, RLUIPA does not create a claim against prison employees in their individual capacities and the district court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating certain procedural matters. United States v. Ramos-Carrillo 511 F. App’x 739 2013 Authored majority Criminal Law & Procedure Affirmed: There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the defendant’s arguments that the grand jury heard false testimony or that the government deliberately prompted a coconspirator to testify falsely, and the jury’s decision to render a guilty verdict before the court provided an answer to questions the jury posed to the court during deliberations demonstrated that the jury was able to resolve its own question without the court’s assistance. Anchondo v. Dunn 511 F. App’x 736 2013 Authored majority Civil Liability; Federal Courts Affirmed: When counsel for a corporation that was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s fees and costs in a class action case acted in bad faith by concealing the existence of a professional liability insurance policy, an award of sanctions against the attorney for the unpaid attorneys’ fees in the class action was appropriate. Newsom v. Ottawa Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs 511 F. App’x 718 2013 Authored majority Civil Rights; Federal Courts Affirmed: The plaintiff’s amended complaint, which recited the elements of the causes of action without explaining which defendants committed which wrong or how, failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. McDonald v. Colorado 510 F. App’x 747 2013 Authored majority Federal Courts Affirmed: District court correctly abstained from hearing plaintiff’s complaint against two state court judges, and the defendant-judges were correctly protected under the doctrines of judicial and Eleventh Amendment immunity. CRS-42 Case Name Citation Year Role Subject Holding Winbush v. Faulk 510 F. App’x 746 2013 Authored majority Habeas Certificate of appealability denied: Petitioner did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right during his criminal proceedings. ClearOne Commc’ns v. Bowers 509 F. App’x 798 2013 Authored majority Civil Liability; Federal Courts; Intellectual Property Affirmed: There was no error in, [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44772. Public record. Not legal advice.