Pueblo of Jemez v United States

Pueblo field a quiet title action seeking confirmation of its aboriginal title to certain lands in New Mexico. The district court concluded the claim should have been brought in 1946 before the Indian Claims Commission and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The panel reversed and remanded. It reviewed the history of Indian rights in land from the arrival of Spanish conquistadores through the early 20th century and held the right of Indians to occupy land remains in effect unless extinguished by the Indians’ consent or through congressional action. Applying here, the panel held that a grant to a family in 1860 of land that included Pueblo land did not expressly abolish aboriginal title and the family’s use of the land would not extinguish title either if the Pueblo excluded other tribes and use the land for traditional purposes continually after eh grant. It also held that because Pueblo’s claim is not based on federal executive orders, circuit precedent on when a claim accrues is not controlling here. It held that payments received by Pueblo in an earlier case did not bar this suit as the previous case involved different land. It finally held that the complaint set out claim and thus denied the government’s rule 12(b)(6) motion.

In re Gordon (Gordon v Wadsworth)

Gordon sought to exempt monies received in a lump sum distribution from a retirement fund from the Chapter 7 estate. The bankruptcy court denied their motion. The panel affirmed holding the relevant Colorado statute only expected funds in a retirement plan and the plain meaning was buttressed by Colorado statutes exempting military pension funds which have been distributed as there is no such provision in the controlling statute here.

Bonidy v United States Postal Service

Bonidy sued for declaratory judgment that the 2nd Amendment allows him to wear his firearm at his hometown post office and its parking lot. The district denied his request as to the post office building, but granted it as to the parking lot. The panel, with one judge dissenting as to the parking lot, affirmed part, reversed in part and remanded for entry of judgment. The majority held that under Unite States Supreme Court precedent, restrictions on firearms in government buildings are per se reasonable and even if that were not the case, Service’s need for a uniform rule to protect its employees and patrons satisfies intermediate scrutiny. The dissent in part argued the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home, as applied here, the regulation is unconstitutional as to the parking lot as there is no evidence there is a heightened risk of crime at this post office and Bonidy has passed the background check and other requirements to get a state concealed weapons permit and only seeks to store his gun in the car while getting his mail.

United States v Sparks

Spark appealed his conviction for witness tampering. The panel affirmed. The panel held there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction as Sparks directed his granddaughter to lie about her mother’s drug dealing and directing another to lie satisfies the requirement of persuasion in the statute. It held there was no error in the jury instructions as the defense as sparks introduced no evidence that he was trying to get eh granddaughter to testify truthfully.