10th Cir.

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Every decision we've summarized from United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

May 19 2026
1:22-CR-00015-RM-1 Panel Decision

United States v. Crow

The Tenth Circuit affirmed a conviction for sexually abusing a minor, ruling that the government had no duty to disclose rebuttal expert testimony before trial. The court held that this disclosure obligation under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure sixteen only arises when the defense has timely disclosed the specific expert opinions the government seeks to counter.

May 19 2026
6:09-CR-00100-RAW-1) Panel Decision

United States v. Mason

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted an unopposed motion to remand in a criminal case involving a sentence revocation. The court vacated the revocation sentence and dismissed the appeal.

May 19 2026
25-2079 Panel Decision

United States v. Cangro

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant. The court held that the affidavit provided probable cause to search the defendant's residence for drugs and firearms, rendering his challenge under Franks v. Delaware unnecessary.

May 19 2026
25-9536 Panel Decision

Turcios-Ortiz, et al. v. Bondi

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied a petition for review seeking asylum and withholding of removal. The court upheld the denial of relief based on a statutory bar for serious nonpolitical crimes and a failure to prove a likelihood of torture upon return to Honduras.

May 19 2026
5:26-CV-04007-HLT-BGS) Panel Decision

Bell v. Younger

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se legal malpractice complaint. The court held that the plaintiff waived her right to appellate review by failing to object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the required timeframe.

May 18 2026
24-5052 Panel Decision

United States v. Thompson

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction of a father for transporting his minor daughter across state lines with intent to engage in sexual activity. The court clarified that the statute requires proof of intent, not a dominant purpose, and held that unchallenged family testimony sufficed to prove the defendant was a non-Indian.