Source: http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2014/07/14/
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 00:04:54
Document Index: 107786875

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 13', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

July 14, 2014 Archives - CBA CLE Legal Connection
You are here: Home / 2014 / July / Archives for 14th
Hon. David R. Gloss to Resign from Gilpin County Court
July 14, 2014 By Susan Hoyt 1 Comment
On Monday, July 7, 2014, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the resignation on Hon. David R. Gloss of the Gilpin County Court in the First Judicial District, effective January 13, 2015.
Judge Gloss was appointed to the county court bench in 2011. Prior to his appointment, he was in private practice, focusing on dependency and neglect and truancy issues. He has also worked as an associate at Albert E. Anderson, P.C. and as a deputy district attorney in the Fourteenth Judicial District. He was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1986.
Applications are now being accepted for the vacancy. Eligible applicants must be qualified electors of Gilpin County and must have graduated high school or achieved the equivalent of a high school diploma. Applications are available from Justice Nathan Coats, the ex officio chair of the First Judicial District Nominating Commission, and are also available on the State Judicial website. Applications are due no later than 4 p.m. on August 13, 2014. Anyone wishing to nominate another person must do so no later than 4 p.m. on August 6, 2014.
Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: 1st Judicial District, county court, court appointments, Gilpin County, judge appointments
Tenth Circuit: Strong Showing of Scienter Required in Securities Class Action Fraud Case
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Weinstein v. McClendon on Tuesday, July 8, 2014.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court on behalf of a class of purchasers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation common stock, alleging that various corporate officers of Chesapeake, including CEO Aubrey McClendon, materially misled the public through false statements and omissions regarding two products, Volumetric Product Payment (VPP) transactions and the Founder Well Participation Program (FWPP). The district court did not decide whether defendants had made false material statements or omissions of fact, holding simply that the allegations in the complaint did not give rise to a strong inference that defendants acted with the intent to defraud as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
In its analysis, the Tenth Circuit examined the burden faced by plaintiffs in securities class actions, and determined that there must be a strong showing of scienter on the part of defendants in order for plaintiffs’ claim to proceed. The Tenth Circuit noted that there was no cogent or compelling inference that defendants materially misrepresented or withheld facts for the purpose of misleading investors. The district court’s dismissal was affirmed.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, business law, class action, fraud, scienter, securities law
Tenth Circuit: Anonymous Tip Was Reasonable Basis for Warrantless Search of Probationer’s House
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Leatherwood v. Welker on Tuesday, July 8, 2014.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, criminal law, Fourth Amendment, probation, warrantless search
Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/14/2014
On Tuesday, July 14, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.
Klein v. King & King & Jones
Vigil-Lazo v. Holder
Creditors Insurance Purchasing Group v. Doak
Tenth Circuit: Notice of Fraudulent Testimony Determined on Date of Testimony, Not Date on Which Affidavit Obtained
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Taylor v. Martin on Tuesday, July 8, 2014.
Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill in Oklahoma on May 9, 2009. He appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed his convictions. He did not appeal that affirmance to the U.S. Supreme Court. On September 16, 2011, Taylor applied for post-conviction relief in state court, based on an affidavit that a government witness, Mr. Cheatham, had lied when he testified that Taylor confessed to the murder. The state court denied his motion and Taylor again appealed to the OCCA, which affirmed the denial. On June 19, 2013, Mr. Taylor filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district court. The government moved to dismiss his petition as time-barred, and the district court agreed. Taylor’s case was dismissed with prejudice and he was denied a Certificate of Appealability (COA). Taylor appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and found that Taylor’s claims were time-barred. His convictions became final on May 17, 2011, after the OCCA concluded its review and his 90-day period for appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court expired. Given the statutory tolling for his post-conviction proceedings, Taylor would have had until April 5, 2013 to file his petition. Further, the date on which Cheatham’s perjury was discovered was the date of the testimony, not the date on which he submitted an affidavit to that effect.
The Tenth Circuit denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, appellate law, Certificate of Appealability, criminal law
Tenth Circuit: Non-Disclosure of Unedited Film Substantially Prejudiced Party Claiming Defamation
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Brokers’ Choice of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc. on Wednesday, July 9, 2014.
Tyrone Clark and his company, Brokers’ Choice of America, Inc. (BCA) sued NBC Universal and some of its employees after Dateline aired a segment called “Tricks of the Trade” that featured snippets of Clark taken from one of his two-day “Annuity University” seminars filmed at BCA’s Colorado campus. The snippets were surreptitiously recorded, and Clark asserts that they were illegally filmed. Only 112 words were taken from the two-day seminar and were used to portray Clark and BCA as teaching insurance agents to employ misrepresentations and use questionable tactics in order to dupe seniors into purchasing inappropriate annuity products. BCA claims that the statements were taken out of context in order to create a false impression and defame Clark and BCA. BCA also asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because Dateline obtained false credentials from Alabama officials in order to surreptitiously film the seminar.
Dateline moved to dismiss the complaint, maintaining that BCA did not allege sufficient facts to show defamation. It also sought to dismiss BCA’s civil rights claims, stating that BCA’s factual allegations did not demonstrate the help received from Alabama officials was joint conduct. The court granted Dateline‘s motion. BCA appealed, contending the district court failed to credit its allegations as true and improperly made factual determinations to reach its conclusions.
The Tenth Circuit first examined the court’s dismissal of BCA’s claims. The Tenth Circuit determined that BCA had alleged sufficient facts to support its defamation claims, noting that the correct inquiry was not the district court’s determination that the statements were substantially true but rather whether the characterization of BCA was substantially true, a question of fact to be determined by a jury. Because Dateline had contested discovery of its unedited video, the only evidence that could have been used to determine whether the characterization was substantially true, the Tenth Circuit turned its inquiry to the video.
After a lengthy discussion, the Tenth Circuit determined that Colorado’s media privilege statute, C.R.S. § 13-90-119, required disclosure of the video. The Tenth Circuit found that BCA would be substantially prejudiced by non-disclosure, and noted that the statute is to be used as a shield to protect confidential informants, not a sword to defeat potentially viable claims. The “probable falsity” test was unwarranted where no confidential informant existed.
As to BCA’s § 1983 claims, the Tenth Circuit found no merit. The Tenth Circuit noted that the government frequently engages in deception to further investigative interests, and the Alabama officials’ furnishing of broker licenses to the Dateline crew amounted to no more than investigative deception.
The dismissal of the § 1983 claim was affirmed. The dismissal of the defamation claim was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, communications law, defamation, entertainment law, Fourth Amendment, litigation
Tenth Circuit: No Need to Suppress Contents of Consensual Search After Legal Traffic Stop
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Salas on Tuesday, July 1, 2014.
Defendant Salas was driving through Oklahoma on his way from Arkansas to Texas when he was pulled over by Deputy Gragg for erratic driving. Salas had crossed the fog line on the right side of the lane twice, forming the basis for the traffic stop. Gragg issued Salas a warning for the traffic violations and told him he was good to go, but when Salas shook Gragg’s hand, the deputy asked him if he would mind answering more questions. Gragg asked Salas if he could search the vehicle and Salas consented. The dash cam in the patrol car recorded this interaction. Gragg’s search revealed nine one-gallon ziploc baggies of methamphetamine, weighing nearly 20 pounds. Salas was arrested and charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Salas moved to suppress the contents of the search, arguing that Gragg lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Salas and that he did not validly consent to the search.
The district court denied suppression, finding that Gragg had reasonable suspicion to stop Salas based on just one of the two fog line violations. After his motion to suppress was denied, Salas entered a guilty plea. The district court accepted the presentence report’s base offense level and sentenced Salas to 151 months’ imprisonment with three years’ supervised release. Salas challenged both the search and the imposed sentence.
The Tenth Circuit determined that the initial traffic stop was lawful based on the fog line violations, one of which would have been enough to raise reasonable suspicion in the officer. Although Salas’ initial fog line violation occurred near a curve in the road, it would not have been enough to cause a driver to veer halfway over the fog line, and the vehicle he was driving was a four-door sedan that would not have been susceptible to light winds. Because the initial stop was lawful, the Tenth Circuit did not need to apply a heightened standard to the legality of Gragg’s search. Salas had consented to the search after the traffic stop had ended and the encounter became a consensual one, and his consent was recorded on the officer’s dash cam. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit determined that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation.
Salas also argued that his sentence should be reduced because of his acceptance of responsibility. However, the purpose of the sentence reduction is to mitigate trial preparation costs, and Salas did not enter the guilty plea until the day the government filed its trial brief. The government was not required to offer the sentence reduction and did not do so in this case, since it had already begun trial preparation and there was no cost mitigation. The Tenth Circuit determined no error in the government’s failure to offer the sentence reduction.
The district court’s order denying suppression and the sentence were affirmed.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, criminal law, motor vehicle law, sentencing, suppression, traffic law
Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/11/2014
On Friday, July 11, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and one unpublished opinion.
Wagner v. Bank of America Corp.