Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
U.S. v. Robert Lee Harrison Jr.
In March 2022, Robert Lee Harrison Jr. attacked his ex-girlfriend in a parking garage, shooting her several times. She survived and identified Harrison to the police.
A federal grand jury indicted Harrison on four counts: being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition, attempted carjacking, kidnapping and use and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
Harrison moved for acquittal on all four charges. He argued, specifically with respect to the attempted carjacking, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he intended to take the victim’s car or that he took a substantial step towards doing so. The district court denied the motion. Harrison was convicted on all four counts.
On appeal, Harrison argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the attempted carjacking conviction; that attempted carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury is not a crime of violence; that the kidnapping conviction should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish a completed kidnapping and the kidnapping jury instruction was plainly erroneous because it failed to include as an element that the victim was held for an appreciable period of time; and that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Harrison intended to take the victim’s car and took a substantial step toward doing so.
But the 10th Circuit found that Harrison’s conviction for attempted carjacking in serious bodily injury didn’t qualify as a crime of violence and ruled that that conviction must be vacated.
The 10th Circuit also concluded that the jury should have been instructed that for the defendant to be convicted of a completed kidnapping, the evidence must show the defendant held the victim for an appreciable period of time. It agreed that the instructional error constituted plain error and concluded the conviction for completed kidnapping must be vacated.
The 10th Circuit agreed with the government that there was sufficient evidence to support an attempted kidnapping charge and remanded and authorized a retrial on the charge of attempted kidnapping.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the convictions for being a felon in possession of ammunition and attempted carjacking. It vacated the kidnapping conviction and remanded with authorization for retrial on the charge of attempted kidnapping, and it remanded the crime of violence charge for the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal.
Fuel Automation Station v. Energera Inc.
Energera Inc. agreed not to sue Fuel Automation Station LLC for infringement of certain patents. Energera subsequently sued Fuel Automation Station’s affiliated entity and subcontractor for patent infringement based on their use of its equipment.
The district court found that the covenant not to sue encompassed the relevant parties but was ambiguous as to whether it included the relevant patent.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court didn’t err in applying ordinary rules of contract construction and invoking the patent exhaustion doctrine to reach these legal conclusions.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Alejandro Menocal commenced a class-action lawsuit against GEO Group Inc., alleging forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and unjust enrichment in violation of Colorado common law.
GEO filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that it was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co.
GEO argued that the Yearsley doctrine functions as a shield from suit rather than as a defense to liability. The district court disagreed and denied GEO’s motion.
GEO appealed the court’s order rejecting its claim of immunity from suit under Yearsley. Menocal moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction because the court’s order rejecting this purported immunity is not immediately appealable.
The 10th Circuit concluded that a district court’s order denying application of the Yearsley doctrine is not subject to interlocutory appeal. More specifically, it determined that the question of Yearsley’s applicability cannot be reviewed completely separate from the merits and, accordingly, an interlocutory appeal cannot be taken from a court order resolving that question under the Supreme Court’s decision in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
The 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal.
Phibro Biodigester v. Murphy-Brown, LLC
Phibro Biodigester brought suit against Murphy-Brown LLC, seeking a preliminary injunction and permanent injunctive relief.
Phibro and Murphy-Brown are parties to the amended and restated manure supply agreement, under which Murphy-Brown promised to maintain a population of at least 405,000 finisher hogs at certain facilities and provide finisher manure to Phibro for use in Phibro’s anaerobic digestion facilities.
Murphy-Brown announced that it was ceasing operations at its finisher facilities and depopulating its finisher hogs, and Phibro alleges that in doing so, Murphy-Brown breached provisions of the agreement.
Phibro moved the district court for a preliminary injunction requiring Murphy-Brown to maintain its finisher hog population at 405,000, but the district court denied that motion. Phibro appealed.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the district court didn’t abuse its discretion—Phibro failed to show that the harm it will suffer without the preliminary injunction outweighed the harm that Murphy-Brown would experience under the injunction, according to the opinion.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.