Skip to Main Content

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Arguments at OCU Law: Home

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit will hold arguments at OCU Law on February 4, 2025

United States v. Berryhill

An Eastern District of Oklahoma Grand Jury charged Berryhill with Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine. Berryhill argued for mitigating role adjustment under Sentencing Guidelines but was denied. Did the sentencing Court apply the wrong legal test in denying a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and thereby commit plain error?

 

 

United States v. Lin

A federal grand jury returned an Indictment charging Lin with one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The overarching question is what is the mens rea the government is required to prove to convict Lin of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. Specifically, 1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, including: (a) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the substance was marijuana; and (b) whether Lin knew and voluntarily agreed to participate in the conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 2) Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence of Lin's belief that the distribution of marijuana was legal under state law; 3) Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury on deliberate ignorance; and 4) Whether there was cumulative error sufficient to reverse the jury's verdict.

United States v. Rocha

Chase Lane Rocha, the Defendant/Appellant, was charged in a three-count indictment with multiple criminal violations of United States law, over which the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) and § 3231. After a jury found Mr. Rocha guilty of a lesser offense in Count One, the district court entered judgment on March 13, 2024. (ROA Vol. 1 at 210) (Attachment 1). The district court also had jurisdiction over the lesser offense of conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a). In a criminal case, a notice of appeal may be filed no later than 14 days after docket entry of the final judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Mr. Rocha filed a timely notice of appeal on March 13, 2024. (ROA Vol. 1 at 217) This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Rocha's direct appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether it was clear error for the district court to deny Mr. Rocha's request for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

2. Whether the district court's decision to vary upward from the guideline range by six levels was substantively unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.

3. Whether the district court's decision to vary upward from the guideline range by six levels was procedurally unreasonable and therefore an abuse of discretion or, in the alternative, plain error.

10th Circuit Practitioner's Guide

The 10th Circuit Practitioner's Guide is a tool designed to help practitioners understand court rules and procedures, and also includes information about the structure of the court, the judges of the 10th Circuit and other guidance regarding filing appeals and original proceedings. The Practitioner's Guide is available here.

United States v. Tyler

Mr.  Tyler was seized at a gas station while at a gas pump so that Oklahoma police officers could arrest a woman sitting in his parked vehicle on an outstanding bench warrant. The police had no particular suspicions about Mr. Tyler that would justify his detention aside from the need to arrest the woman with him. After the woman was arrested and secured in handcuffs, but before she was taken to jail, Mr. Tyler was still forcibly detained until police searched his vehicle due to an apparent drug dog alert. Did the district court err when it determined that Mr. Tyler's continued detention at the gas station was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Did Mr. Tyler waive the right to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the appellate waiver of his plea agreement?

Lamle, et al., Appellants v. Eads, et al.

A federal district court in Oklahoma granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS or state agency), in a lawsuit brought by three Medicaid applicants (Applicants) whose applications were denied by the state agency. The denials were issued after the three applicants refused to answer inquiries regarding the status of the promissory notes each applicant had entered into with a third party. The court determined that the state agency’s inquiries were necessary in order to determine Medicaid eligibility and therefore did not violate the Medicaid statute. This was appealed to the Tenth Circuit. 

Issue 1: Whether the information solicited through Appellees' five questions was relevant and necessary in processing Ms. Lamle's and Ms. Houston's Medicaid applications. Issue 2: Whether the Agencies failed to evaluate those Medicaid applications with "reasonable promptness."

United States v. Ward

Appellant Ward moved to suppress post-arrest statements and prior identifications after being charged with four assault and gun-related charges related to his participation in the assault of three men in Indian Country. 

1. Did the district court properly find probable cause supported Defendant's arrest?

2. Did the Government's impeachment of Defendant during cross examination and comments on Defendant's credibility during closing argument implicate Defendant's right to silence?

3. Did the district court properly exclude some evidence sponsored by Defendant as irrelevant, hearsay, cumulative, or potentially confusing to the jury?

4. Did the district court properly instruct the jury that Defendant bore the burden to prove his duress defense by a preponderance of the evidence?

5. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's requests for a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and a downward departure for duress?