Sven Erik Holmes

In United States v. Barkley, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges including interference with commerce by robbery, attempted carjacking, and multiple counts of using a firearm during crimes of violence, stemming from a series of convenience store robberies and a carjacking attempt in Oklahoma. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker, which held that mandatory application of sentencing guidelines based on judicial factfinding violates the Sixth Amendment, the court addressed how to apply the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court decided to treat the Guidelines as advisory but to apply them strictly in this case by requiring that any facts increasing the sentence be proven to a jury or admitted by the defendant, thereby satisfying Blakely's constitutional requirements. The core reasoning was that Booker rendered the Guidelines discretionary, allowing courts to impose sentences consistent with the Sixth Amendment by incorporating jury protections for sentencing enhancements rather than shifting to a fully discretionary system without such safeguards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a contract dispute where Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (ONG) sued Apache Corporation and others for breach of a take-or-pay gas purchase contract and prevailed, leading to a motion for attorney fees under 12 O.S. § 936. The court, after de novo review of objections to the magistrate judge's report, decided to grant ONG attorney fees in the amount of $339,547.60, including certain Westlaw charges but applying reductions for block billing and limiting hourly rates. The reasoning centered on finding the magistrate's recommendations appropriate regarding hourly rates for lead counsel, reductions for excessive or block-billed time, paralegal fees, and allowable expenses, based on the record and applicable law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Act of May 10, 1928, which made minerals including oil and gas from restricted allotted lands of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma subject to all state and federal taxes. Plaintiffs, heirs to Creek Indian allotments who received income from oil and gas production on the land, argued that the statute effected an uncompensated taking in violation of due process. The court ruled the statute constitutional, finding that Congress possesses broad power to classify and tax in this area, that such legislation receives rational basis review, and that federal Indian classifications are not subject to strict scrutiny as impermissible racial distinctions.

taxesfederal power

This case involves the sentencing of Danny Eugene O'Daniel after his guilty plea to charges of knowingly transporting visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct over the internet in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a). The defendant argued that applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines would violate the Sixth Amendment under Blakely v. Washington because enhancements would rely on judicial factfinding rather than jury determinations. The court ruled that Blakely applies to the Guidelines but that they remain constitutional when limited to facts admitted by the defendant in the plea agreement or found by a jury, and that the defendant's stipulations in this case allowed constitutional application of the Guidelines without additional factfinding. The court therefore imposed a sentence based solely on the admitted facts from the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Mark Woodrich and his auto insurer, Farmers, over the amount of medical payments (med pay) benefits owed under a policy with a $100,000 limit following a 2002 car accident. Woodrich submitted medical bills with a face value exceeding $15,000, but many were discounted or written off after submission to his health insurer, resulting in providers accepting lower amounts as full payment. Farmers moved for partial summary judgment, arguing it had already paid more than required and owed nothing further, including no attorney fees on the bad faith claim. The court granted the motion in full, holding that the policy obligated Farmers only to pay reasonable expenses limited to amounts actually accepted by providers, that Farmers had overpaid relative to those amounts, and that attorney fees were not recoverable as damages in the bad faith claim under Oklahoma law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs' request for documents from the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, after which they sued for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging an inadequate search and production. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint due to untimeliness after the discovery deadline. Following multiple hearings, additional searches ordered by the court, and review of IRS affidavits, the court granted summary judgment to the IRS, finding that the agency had conducted an adequate and reasonable search and produced all responsive documents in its possession. The court denied plaintiffs' summary judgment motion accordingly.

procedurefederal power

The case involves a landowner suing a pipeline company and its contractors for trespass, inverse condemnation, and wrongful tree removal after easement clearing activities damaged trees and vegetation on her property. The defendants moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the easement that governed the real property at issue. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion in part and denying it in part. It held that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable, having been assigned and running with the land, but concluded that the clause did not cover all of the plaintiff's claims, particularly those involving conduct or damages outside the geographic scope of the easement.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

Plaintiffs, landowners, sued Conoco Pipeline Company and contractors for trespass, inverse condemnation, and wrongful removal of trees after easement clearing activities damaged vegetation on their property. Conoco moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the easement governing the land. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the arbitration agreement was assignable, ran with the land, had not been waived, and covered some but not all of the claims against Conoco, while claims against the individual contractors must proceed in court. The ruling was based on analysis under the Federal Arbitration Act, the Oklahoma Uniform Arbitration Act, contract law, and property law principles.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Phyllis Campbell, a former Wal-Mart employee, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and supervisor Wanda Nixon, alleging unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on her disability, along with related state-law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine disputes of material fact on issues such as reasonable accommodation, hostile work environment, pretext for termination, and the state claims. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion after reviewing the record and construing facts in the plaintiff's favor, finding material factual disputes on the ADA claims sufficient to proceed to trial; the district judge adopted the recommendation in full after de novo review and overruled the defendants' objections, resulting in denial of summary judgment (with the negligent infliction claim deemed moot after withdrawal).

labor & employmentcivil rights

This ERISA case involves claims by participants in The Williams Companies, Inc. Investment Plus Plan, a 401(k) individual account plan that permits employee contributions to be invested in company stock and requires employer matching and bonus contributions to be made in Williams common stock. The defendants, including the company, its board of directors, and members of its investment and benefits committees, moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion as to the company and board but denied it as to the committee members. The ruling was based on the standard for motions to dismiss, the plan documents showing that the plan is an eligible individual account plan exempt from ERISA diversification rules, and determinations regarding which defendants qualify as fiduciaries under ERISA.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the Cherokee Nation's challenge to the Secretary of the Interior's 1996 decision withdrawing a 1979 letter that had altered federal dealings with the Delaware Tribe of Indians and instead declaring the Delaware a federally recognized tribe eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs funding. The court upheld the Secretary's actions in full. It held that retracting the 1979 letter restored the prior status quo without announcing new substantive policy, as historical records, congressional appropriations acts, and Supreme Court precedent already treated the Delaware as a recognized sovereign tribe. Review proceeded under the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary-and-capricious standard, with deference afforded to the agency's factual and legal determinations.

federal powerprocedure

This case concerns the resentencing of defendant Malcom Derome McGee after his conviction on Count Three of an indictment for violating 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), which prohibits using a telephone to facilitate drug offenses. The jury had found evidence of seven separate violations during trial, leading to an initial sentence based on multiple violations, but the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. The district court determined that a single count in the indictment can support sentencing for only one violation, regardless of evidence presented at trial or the jury's findings on multiple acts, because the indictment provided notice of only one offense. The court therefore ordered sentencing for a single violation of the statute while noting procedural lapses by counsel in the prior appeal but adhering to the appellate mandate.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by the Cherokee Nation to the Secretary of the Interior's 1996 decision to withdraw a 1979 Department of the Interior letter that had treated the Delaware Tribe of Indians as lacking a separate government-to-government relationship with the United States independent of the Cherokee Nation. The court upheld the Secretary's action, finding it a valid exercise of delegated authority. The core reasoning was that the 1979 position had failed to consider the full historical record of direct federal dealings with the Delaware Tribe or to properly interpret relevant 1860s treaties and agreements, whereas the 1996 review incorporated those materials along with comments from both tribes and concluded that independent recognition more accurately reflected the legal and administrative history.

federal power

This case involved an insurance company that paid a landlord for fire damage to a warehouse building and then sought to recover those payments from the commercial tenant via subrogation rights under the policy. The court granted the tenant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the subrogation claims. The core reasoning was that under Oklahoma law, as established in Sutton v. Jondahl, a tenant is an implied co-insured on the landlord's fire insurance policy and thus immune from subrogation actions by the insurer. The decision rested on the principle that the insurer stands in the shoes of the insured and has no greater rights against a co-insured.

propertytorts & liability

This case involves a class action by over 1,000 former employees of McDonnell Douglas Corporation's Tulsa, Oklahoma aircraft plant, who participated in the company's ERISA-qualified retirement and retiree health care plans. The plaintiffs alleged that MDC violated ERISA section 510 by closing the Tulsa facility in 1993 specifically to interfere with their attainment of those benefits, after having publicly represented that the plant's operations would continue if a major F-15 contract was approved. Following a trial and post-trial proceedings, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on liability, finding that the company's stated business reasons for the closure were not credible and that circumstantial evidence supported an intent to deprive employees of benefits. The court also imposed liability as a sanction for the defendant's repeated discovery abuses, false statements under oath, and obstruction during litigation. The decision rested on the lack of credible explanation for the plant closure combined with evidence of deception toward employees, the public, and the court.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by an Oklahoma prisoner challenging his 1993 jury convictions and consecutive sentences for first-degree rape and first-degree burglary. The U.S. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation found that most claims were procedurally defaulted because they were not properly raised on direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and the remaining claims—prosecutorial misconduct, one-person show-up identification, burglary jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—lacked merit under the applicable standards of review. The district court adopted the Report in full after no objections were filed and denied the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a plaintiff's state-law claims for breach of contract and bad faith against an insurer for its delay in paying life insurance benefits due under a policy that formed part of an employer's employee benefit package. The defendant removed the action to federal court, arguing that the claims were governed by ERISA and therefore raised a federal question. The court accepted as true the allegations that the policy was an ERISA-covered employee welfare benefit plan and that the insurer had eventually paid the benefits. It held that the breach-of-contract claim was preempted by ERISA because the requested relief was limited to benefits already received, and it analyzed whether the bad-faith tort claim under Oklahoma law “regulates insurance” so as to fall within ERISA’s saving clause after the Supreme Court’s decision in UNUM Life Insurance Co. v. Ward.

federal powerbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves the FDIC, as successor to a failed savings and loan, suing Joseph A. Frates for breach of contract and warranty in connection with his role in Equivest Financial Corporation's acquisition of State Federal Savings and Loan Association in 1986. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted Frates' motion for summary judgment on both counts while denying the FDIC's cross-motions. On the first claim, the court found that Frates had an enforceable personal guarantee obligation for additional capital contributions but that the obligation was never triggered because State already met the required 5% regulatory capital threshold as of the relevant date. On the second claim, the court held that any promise by Frates to indemnify against losses on the Sierra Gateway property was unenforceable for lack of consideration or promissory estoppel. The decision rested on a de novo review of the record, contracts, and applicable doctrines under Oklahoma law.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee's appeal challenging the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that creditor Arcadia Financial Ltd. had properly perfected its security interest in a debtor's 1997 vehicle under Oklahoma law, despite omitting the date of the security agreement from the lien entry form submitted to the Oklahoma Tax Commission. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision. The core reasoning was that Oklahoma's motor vehicle perfection statute (47 O.S. § 1110) expressly incorporates the substantial compliance principles of the UCC, the lien entry form provided sufficient notice of the lien's existence and timing through other details like the signature date, and no evidence showed the omission misled parties. The court rejected strict compliance arguments based on prior precedent like In re Cook.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerns a lawsuit by National Occupational Health Services, Inc. (NOHS) against Advanced Industrial Care and Sherry J. Von Stieff alleging tortious interference with NOHS's contract to provide health screening and testing services to MOST, a trust serving boilermaker union members. The contract's performance, including creation of proprietary systems and analysis of test data, occurred primarily in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, arguing insufficient contacts with Oklahoma. The court denied the motion, holding that specific personal jurisdiction existed because defendants' alleged acts were purposefully directed at the Oklahoma contract and NOHS as the Oklahoma party, with the suit arising from those contacts.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory