Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2012/06/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:14:55+00:00

Document:
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA on Monday, June 11, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner “appeals from the district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss filed by [Respondent Bank]. [Petitioner] brought claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages against [Respondent] for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), averring that her lender failed to make required disclosures in a residential loan refinancing agreement executed by the parties, and that, as a result, she is entitled to a rescission of her loan agreement. [Petitioner] argues that the district court erred in dismissing her claims and holding that she failed to timely exercise her right of rescission within the applicable three-year time bar specified by TILA.
The Court concluded that “the district court properly dismissed [Petitioner]’s complaint on the ground that she failed to exercise her rescission rights within the three-year repose period under § 1635(f) and, therefore, her rescission rights expired. Relatedly, [the Court held] that her rescission argument based upon her defensive actions in Colorado’s Rule 120 proceeding is unavailing, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow [Petitioner] to amend her complaint to incorporate facts related to it. In light of these two rulings, which establish that [Petitoiner]’s TILA rescission rights were extinguished, [the Court did not] reach [Petitioner]’s third argument relating to whether the limitations period of § 1640 barred her TILA claims.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Ribeau, Jr. v. Katt on Monday, June 11, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner was hired as a maintenance mechanic for a school district in 1984. “Over the years, he was promoted, assumed various job titles, and took on supervisory duties.” Respondents, his supervisors, decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment based on his alleged poor work performance, and twice told Petitioner that the Board of Education had approved his termination. “Due to the [Respondents]’ representations, [Petitioner] believed he could not file a grievance because the Board had already approved his termination. The Board, however, had not yet given its approval. . . . During [Petitioner]’s employment, he signed 23 separate employment agreements. Each agreement stated that [Petitioner] was an at-will employee.” Petitioner sued Respondents, alleging that they had deprived him of his property interest in continued employment without due process of law, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that because Petitioner was an at-will employee, he did not have a protected property interest in his continued employment.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Cruz on Monday, June 11, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conviction. Petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. “On appeal, he argues that the district court erred (1) in not requiring the government to disclose a confidential informant involved in a controlled buy, and (2) in relying on certain disputed facts about the controlled buy contained in the PSR.
The Court found that “panels that uphold such denials [of requests for disclosure] generally find that the value of the informant to the defense is ‘speculative’ or irrelevant” and this case is similar. Additionally, “no case law requires the government specifically to assert its interest in protecting the identity of the informant. [The Court] assumes the interest is informant safety, keeping the information flowing, or not compromising other investigations. . . . The district court indicated on the record that it considered the controlled buy to be relevant conduct, and in doing so relied not only on the PSR but evidence it took at trial. Remand would only allow the court to reiterate or to state more clearly what is already implicit,” and the outcome would be the same.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Kieffer on Monday, June 11, 2012.
In 2010, a jury in the District of Colorado also convicted Petitioner of making false statements in addition to wire fraud and contempt of court. “As to the false statements count, the jury found that to gain admission to the District of Colorado, [Petitioner] fraudulently represented to the court clerk’s office that he was licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia. As to the wire fraud count, the jury found [Petitioner] used a website, www.boplaw.com, to promote his unauthorized practice of law and bilk a criminal defendant’s brother out of several thousand dollars. Lastly, as to the contempt count, the jury found [Petitioner] jeopardized the administration of justice by lying to the clerk’s office and purporting to represent that criminal defendant before the district court. The district court sentenced Defendant to 57 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the 51 month sentence previously imposed on him in the District of North Dakota. The court further ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $152,019 to seven victims of his scheme unaccounted for in North Dakota, and directed him as a special condition of supervised release to obtain the probation office’s preapproval of any proposed employment or business ventures.” Petitioner appealed his most recent convictions and sentence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction, but vacate its judgment of sentence on the wire fraud and false statements counts.
On Monday, June 11, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

References: v. 
 § 1635
 § 1640
 v. 
 v. 
 v.