August 25, 2019

Archives for June 21, 2012

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/20/12

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

United States v. Zuber

United States v. Lee

United States v. Garcia-Sanchez

Fish Creek Capital, LLC v. Flat Creek Capital, LLC

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Upcoming Solo/Small Firm Monthly Networking Meetings: July 2012

The Solo/Small Firm Section networking meetings are a great opportunity to connect with your peers, as well as a practice management and technology discussion forum. The meetings are open to all CBA members, not just members of the Solo/Small Firm Section, the sponsoring entity. Some offer CLE credits, although sometimes there is no formal agenda, and no RSVP is required to attend any of the meetings.  You are encouraged to think about and prepare questions or ideas to present to the group.  Don’t hesitate to e-mail a meeting coordinator to suggest a CLE topic and/or speaker!

      • Downtown Denver
        • July 10 (Second Tuesday of every month)
          • Happy Hour at 5:30 pm
        • Stoney’s Bar and Grill, 1111 Lincoln St., Denver, CO (303) 830-6839
        • Contact Jennifer D. McGinn, (720) 362-3000,
        • There is no parking at the bar but there is free 2-hour parking up one block on Sherman St. and there is a garage directly across the street from the bar on Lincoln St.  There is also plenty of metered parking on Lincoln.
      • Denver Tech Center Area
        • July 13 (Second Friday of every month)
          • Brown Bag Lunch at noon
        • Law Offices of Julian Izbiky, 7400 E. Caley Ave., Suite 300, Centennial, CO (303) 850-7080
        • Contact Phil Shuey, (303) 680-2595,
        • Exit I-25 and go west on Orchard and turn south on Quebec (or exit I-25 and go west on Arapahoe and turn north on Quebec).  From Quebec, turn east on E. Caley Ave.  The building is on the right, not far from Quebec.

Dates are subject to change; however, they will occur as scheduled unless prior notice has been sent to the Section membership via e-mail.  Please check this website on a regular basis.

Tenth Circuit: No Standing to Sue Judges of Court of Indian Offenses for Not Enjoining State Criminal Proceeding

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Turner v. McGee on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner, “a member of the Kiowa Tribe, was charged by Oklahoma state authorities with instituting or encouraging cockfighting. The state court rejected [Petitioner]’s argument that the crime took place in Indian Country. While state prosecution was ongoing, [Petitioner] requested that the Court of Indian Offenses for the Kiowa Tribe enjoin the state proceeding. That court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Petitioner] was subsequently convicted in state court. [Petitioner] then sued the judges of the Court of Indian Offenses in federal district court. The district court denied relief, concluding that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity as tribal officials.

On different ground from the district court, the Court concluded that Petitioner “lacks standing because he cannot establish redressability. Given the procedural posture of this case, it is unclear what—if any—action the district court could take to undermine [Petitioner]’s conviction. Because the requested injunction would not redress [Petitioner]’s injury, he lacks standing to pursue his claims.”

Tenth Circuit: Detention and Vehicle Search Not Violations of Fourth Amendment; Right to Speedy Trial Not Violated

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Madden on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner “pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress and to quash the indictment for excessive delay. He argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his detention and the subsequent search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. He argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to quash the indictment because a preindictment delay of four years violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.”

The Court found that the “district court properly denied both motions. Neither [Petitioner]’s detention, nor the search of his vehicle, violated the Fourth Amendment. [His] investigatory detention was justified by articulable and reasonable suspicion and his subsequent arrest was supported by probable cause. Moreover, the search of [Petitioner]’s vehicle falls within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In addition, the preindictment delay did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. [Petitioner] failed to show the requisite prejudice to establish a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Furthermore, because the delay occurred prior to [his] indictment, his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated.”