United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Special Session
University of Oklahoma College of Law
February 10, 2015
Judges: Bacharach, Baldock, McHugh
14-6099 (WOK)
Sierra Club, et al., Appellants v. Bostic, et al.
Sierra Club filed for declaratory and injunctive relief in an effort to prevent
TransCanada from constructing a pipeline that would run between Cushing, Oklahoma
and Nederland, Texas. TransCanada submitted Pre-Construction Notices (PCNs) to
different district offices of the Army Corps of Engineers to verify that the project fell
within the scope of Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12).
Sierra Club argued at trial that the Corps’ reissuance of NWP 12 and the
subsequent verifications violate several federal environmental protection laws. The
district court entered judgment for Defendants. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Sierra
Club argues that the Corps violated federal environmental protection laws when they
approved the pipeline without analyzing its environmental impacts—such as the impact
of oil spills—and failed to make a cumulative effects evaluation of the project on U.S.
waters and the environment. Defendants argue that their actions were in compliance with
all applicable law, and that the case is moot because the pipeline has already been
constructed.
14-6122 (WOK)
Kirk, et al, Appellants v. Cimarex Energy
This case concerns right, title, and interest in certain oil and gas leases located in
Canadian County, Oklahoma and primarily involves relations between Kirk, LLC,
Cimarex Energy Co., and Chesapeake Exploration, LLC. The district court granted
summary judgment to Defendant, Cimarex Energy, finding that Cimarex had acquired
valid title through a series of proper legal assignments. Kirk appeals to the Tenth Circuit,
contending (1) the leases were properly assigned to Kirk, thereby disrupting the alleged
chain of title asserted by Cimarex; (2) a depth limitation existed on one or more of the
leases, restricting the scope of its assignment; (3) Kirk was improperly denied its claim
for quiet title; and (4) the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
Cimarex on the defense of laches because there was no delay by Kirk that resulted in
irreparable harm or prejudice to Cimarex.
14-5052 (NOK)
Cook v. Peters, Appellant
Defendant Joe Peters, Sr., an off-duty deputy, arrested Brandon Cook, a juvenile,
for trespassing and creating a disturbance in the Tulsa Promenade Mall. During the arrest,
a physical altercation arose between Peters and Cook. Cook subsequently sued Peters
alleging that Peters violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure by
using excessive force during the arrest. In his motion for summary judgment, Peters
asserted he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, and
Peters now appeals. The issue is whether the district court properly denied Peters’
qualified immunity defense. (See also, Ornelas v. Lovewell, Attocknie v. Smith, and
Attocknie v. Cherry, below.)
14-5070 (EOK)
United States, Appellant v. Williams
In 1997, Defendant Jeffrey Williams was charged with federal drug and firearm
offenses. He initially entered a plea of not guilty, but eventually pleaded guilty on advice
of counsel. The court sentenced Williams to thirty-five years in prison. On April 18,
2014, the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma vacated Williams’
conviction, dismissed the indictment, and released Williams from custody pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). The court found that several officers engaged
in “unconstitutional and illegal conduct in 1997[] when they arrested Williams,” and this
fraud upon the court gave the court the “inherent power and jurisdiction to grant relief.”
The United States appeals, arguing, inter alia, that (1) the district court lacked
jurisdiction; (2) the district court erred by acting sua sponte on the issue of fraud upon the
court; (3) vacating Williams’ conviction was an improper grant of relief under applicable
statutes.
14-7028 (EOK)
United States v. Edwards, Appellant
Police used an anonymous 9-11 call and drug-trained dogs to locate over seven
kilograms of hydroponic marijuana and approximately sixty-five grams of
methamphetamine, among other drugs, in a vehicle leaving Oklahoma City. Edwards was
a passenger, and no drugs were found on his person when he was apprehended in a
nearby apartment. Edwards was convicted of drug related crimes and sentenced as a
Career Offender, receiving almost twenty-two years in prison and then four years of
supervised release. On appeal, Edwards argues that (1) the prosecutor used the
anonymous 9-11 call as substantive evidence of guilt instead of properly using the
evidence in a limited manner, violating Edwards’ constitutional right to confrontation and
prohibition of hearsay; (2) it was plain error to present an uncharged basis for conviction
(possession with intent to distribute) when Edwards was charged with aiding and
abetting to possess with intent to distribute; and (3) it was plain error not to inform the
jury of one necessary condition for aiding and abetting—that someone else commit the
charged crime.
14-7052 (EOK)
oral argument)
United States v. Engles, Appellant (submitted on the Briefs –no
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Special Session
University of Oklahoma College of Law
February 11, 2015
Judges: Hartz, Holmes, Phillips
14-7053 (EOK)
Attocknie v. Smith, et al., Appellants
14-7054 (EOK)
Attocknie v. Cherry, et. al., Appellants
Sheriff Shannon Smith deputized Officer Kenneth Cherry, a compliance officer
with the Oklahoma Drug Court for Seminole County, without Cherry ever recording any
formal law enforcement training. On August 25, 2012, Cherry attempted to execute an
arrest warrant for Randall Palmer. Instead of arresting Randall Palmer, Cherry shot and
killed his son, Aaron Palmer. Aaron Palmer's estate is now suing Cherry and Smith under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating Aaron Palmer's constitutional rights. The
defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing that they were entitled to
qualified immunity. The district court denied these motions. Defendants filed this
interlocutory appeal so that the Tenth Circuit may evaluate the qualified immunity
defenses and determine whether Defendants are entitled to avoid any future litigation.
14-3087 (KS)
Ornelas, Appellant v. Lovewell
Jesus Ornelas sued State Trooper C.R. Lovewell alleging that Lovewell violated
his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure by employing excessive force
during an arrest for driving under the influence. The district court granted summary
judgment for Lovewell on the basis of qualified immunity. In order to overcome a
qualified immunity defense Ornelas had to show that (1) Lovewell’s actions violated a
constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time
of the complained conduct. Ornelas appeals to the Tenth Circuit to determine whether the
district court properly applied the summary judgment standard and the two prongs of the
qualified immunity defense.
14-3125 (KS)
Didier, Appellant v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.
Jeremy Didier, a female employee, brought action against her former employer,
Abbott Laboratories, asserting claims of sex discrimination, religious discrimination,
retaliation under Title VII, and claims of interference and retaliation under Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor
Defendants. Didier appeals to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that summer judgment was
improperly granted because Didier met the “not onerous” burden required for sex
discrimination claims, there was ample evidence to support each of her discrimination
claims, and because she established a prima facie FMLA case.
14-3069 (KS)
United States v. Apperson, Appellant
14-3070 (KS)
United States v. Pickard, Appellant
These cases involve a confidential government informant named Gordon Todd
Skinner. The district court denied Appellants’ motion to unseal documents relating to
Skinner’s investigation. The district court considered the government’s interest in
effective law enforcement, Skinner’s privacy interest, and the public’s right to know the
information contained in the documents. The issue before the Tenth Circuit is whether the
district court abused its discretion in balancing these interests in favor of the government.
14-3117 (KS)
United States v. Mays (Damien), Appellant (to be argued)
14-3106 (KS)
United States v. Mays (Verdell), Appellant (submitted on the
briefs)
Damian Mays pleaded guilty to several drug related charges including intent to
distribute cocaine and marijuana, conspiracy, use of a communication device to facilitate
a drug trafficking offense, and maintaining a drug involved premises. The district court
sentenced Mays to over twenty-two years in prison. Mays appeals his sentence,
contending that the district court erred when it increased his offense level under
sentencing guidelines based on possession of a firearm, reckless endangerment, and
obstruction of justice.
14-8005 (WY)
United States v. Sadler, Appellant (submitted on the Briefs)
The Federal Bar Association, University of Oklahoma College of Law Student
Division would like to thank the following students for their contributions to this event:
Ryan Haynie, Samuel Merchant, Blair Sutter, Zayna Radwan, Brent Mayes, Lindsay
Swiniuch, Nathan Hall, John Curtis III, Katie Eissenstat, Jeffrey Hendrickson, and
Mitchell Spencer.