Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Following a joint trial with Co-Defendant Olalekan Rufai, a jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Adedayo Adegboye of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Finding the evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to support his convictions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Adegboye" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case stemmed from a civil-enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") against Defendant-Appellant Ralph Thompson, Jr., in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme Thompson ran through his company, Novus Technologies, L.L.C. ("Novus"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC on several issues, including the issue of whether the instruments Novus sold investors were "securities." Thompson's single issue on appeal was that the district court ignored genuine disputes of material fact on the issue of whether the Novus instruments were securities, and that he was entitled to have a jury make that determination. After careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under the test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Reves v. Ernst & Young" (494 U.S. 56 (1990)), the district court correctly found that the instruments Thompson sold were securities as a matter of law. View "SEC v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Sergio Alvarez was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He pled guilty to the possession with intent to distribute charge, but he refused to plead guilty to the related conspiracy count and was convicted after trial. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court erred when it denied him an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

Abercrombie & Fitch appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, on the EEOC’s claim that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a prospective employee, Samantha Elauf in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Ms. Elauf ever informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore a hijab for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice because of Abercrombie’s clothing policy. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie. View "EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch" on Justia Law

Appellant Tyre S. Haggerty pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and one count of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. He appealed the convictions, arguing his seventy-two-month sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the criteria in United States Sentencing Guidelines for a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Both appellant and the government sought reversal and remand of the judgment, with directions for the district court to grant or deny the reduction based on its consideration of the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed appellant should be resentenced, and remanded to the district court. View "United States v. Haggerty" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of using fire to commit a felony, and two counts of arson. He was sentenced to 430 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing among other things, that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Tolliver" on Justia Law

Defendant Rocky Eugene Dodd was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court and received two death sentences. Defendant made an 28 U.S.C. 2254 application for relief at the federal district court; all fifteen claims in his application were denied. He appealed the denial of four claims: (1) that the evidence of guilt was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court denied him the rights to present a complete defense and confront witnesses when it excluded evidence that somebody else had committed the murders; (3) that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial; and (4) that testimony by the victims’ relatives recommending the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of relief on the first three claims, but reversed the fourth. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant relief on Defendant’s sentences, subject to the State’s right to resentence him within a reasonable time. View "Dodd v. Workman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Buschco Corp., Companions, LLC and TT II, Inc. are escort services. The State of Utah brought suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Appellants claimed certain amendments to the Utah Code were overly broad, unconstitutionally vague, and infringed on their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the federal constitution. The district court found that portions of Utah's Sexual Solicitation Statute were unconstitutionally vague, and upheld other parts. Appellants appealed. Three issues presented to the Tenth Circuit were: (1) whether issue preclusion applied to the Statute's constitutionality since a similar, predecessor statute had been held unconstitutional; (2) whether Amendments to the Sexual Solicitation Statute were overbroad or placed too great a burden on First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the Amendments to the Statute were unconstitutionally vague. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held: (1) issue preclusion did not apply; (2) the amendments were not unconstitutionally overbroad; and (3) the statute implicated in this appeal was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Bushco, et al v. Shurtleff, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Delbert Ingram appealed a district court dismissal of his claims against Defendants-Appellees Dr. Hashib D. Faruque, Dr. Yan Feng, Donna Delise, Kyle Inhofe, Lt. Michael Stevenson, and Captain Tim Collins. Plaintiff claimed Defendants had violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the federal constitution by holding him in a psychiatric ward for over twenty-four hours without his consent. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that, among other things, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provided the sole remedy for plaintiff's claims. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the district court lacked subject matter to hear plaintiff's claims and affirmed. View "Ingram v. Faruque, et al" on Justia Law

Two petitions for habeas relief arising from the murder conviction and death sentence of Michael Howell were before the Tenth Circuit. Howell's first petition came before the Court in 2002. After the Supreme Court ruled that states could not impose capital punishment on persons with mental impairments, the Court abated the petition and allowed Howell to pursue a mental-disability challenge to his sentence in state court. In 2005, a state court jury found that Howell was not mentally retarded Howell then filed a second petition, alleging seventeen grounds for relief, in addition to the five grounds remaining from his first petition that were never considered the Court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Howell was not entitled to habeas relief on either petition. View "Howell v. Trammell" on Justia Law