The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals released the following opinions regarding cases originating in Colorado. Read the case summaries and full opinions, below.
Medina v. Hansen, No. 26-1172 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026) (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-02524-PAB)
(D. Colo.) The court denied Colorado prisoner Delano Medina a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal challenging the denial of a second post-judgment motion in his federal habeas case. Medina was convicted in Colorado state court of felony menacing, attempted first-degree assault and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, along with seven habitual-criminal counts, and was sentenced to 44 years in prison. His subsequent federal habeas petition included an ineffective-assistance claim alleging that trial counsel failed to communicate a favorable plea offer. The federal district court rejected that claim after finding Medina had not identified record evidence showing the plea offer existed.
After judgment, Medina pointed to transcript statements that he argued showed prosecutors had offered him a 10-year plea deal. He ultimately filed a second motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), contending that the district court misunderstood his habeas claim because he had alleged multiple plea offers that counsel failed to communicate. The district court denied that motion as untimely because Rule 59(e) requires such motions to be filed within 28 days of judgment. Medina filed his second motion more than three months after the June 10, 2025 judgment. The 10th Circuit determined that a certificate of appealability was required because, although framed as a challenge to the earlier post-judgment ruling, Medina’s motion effectively sought reconsideration of the merits of his habeas petition.
The appellate court held that Medina failed to show that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s timeliness ruling. Rule 59(e)’s 28-day deadline cannot be extended, and Medina did not actually challenge that procedural determination on appeal, instead continuing to argue the merits of the alleged 10-year plea offer. The panel added that treating the late Rule 59(e) motion as a Rule 60(b) motion would not help Medina: because it effectively reasserted a basis for overturning his underlying conviction, it would constitute an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition. The court therefore denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed this appeal, while allowing Medina to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. Importantly, the order notes that Medina has separate appeals concerning his original § 2254 petition and first round of post-judgment motions still pending; the 10th Circuit has granted a certificate of appealability and appointed counsel in those proceedings. Read the opinion.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. v. Flatiron, No. 25-1140 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026) Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-02811-WJM-KAS) The 10th Circuit affirmed a multimillion-dollar judgment for AECOM Technical Services Inc. (ATS) in a long-running contract dispute arising from construction of express lanes on Colorado’s C-470. Flatiron Constructors and an AECOM affiliate formed a joint venture to bid on the Colorado Department of Transportation project and hired ATS to perform engineering and design work. After the joint venture won the contract, ATS continued as a subcontractor, but redesigns, delays and disputes over responsibility plagued the project. ATS eventually sued for breach of contract, seeking more than $5 million, largely for unpaid change-order work. The joint venture counterclaimed and sought more than $260 million for alleged project delays, increased material costs and other losses. Following a lengthy trial, a jury sided with ATS on both its claims and the joint venture’s counterclaims, and the district court awarded ATS approximately $5.26 million plus interest.
On appeal, the joint venture challenged a series of rulings made during nearly five years of litigation. Among other things, it argued that the district court should have accepted its last-minute attempt to concede ATS’s contract claim and allow the joint venture to proceed as the functional plaintiff at trial; should have granted judgment as a matter of law because ATS failed to satisfy contractual requirements governing change orders; and should have instructed the jury on the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. It also challenged the district court’s refusal to allow it to add fraudulent-concealment and fraudulent-inducement counterclaims years after the deadline for amending the pleadings. The district court had found the timing of the proposed fraud claims suspect and concluded that allowing them shortly before trial would cause ATS overwhelming prejudice.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Gregory Phillips rejected the joint venture’s arguments and affirmed the judgment for ATS. The court concluded that the joint venture’s attempted concession did not render ATS’s claim constitutionally moot; that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s treatment of the disputed change orders, including evidence that the joint venture had effectively waived certain contractual conditions; and that the good-faith-and-fair-dealing theory had not been properly preserved for trial. The panel also upheld the refusal to permit the late fraud counterclaims, emphasizing the joint venture’s delay and the resulting prejudice to ATS. The published decision is notable for Colorado construction and commercial litigators because it addresses contract integration, the economic-loss rule, change-order requirements, preservation of contract theories and the consequences of attempting to introduce new fraud claims late in complex litigation. Read the opinion.
Liberty Global, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1410 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026) (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03501-RBJ) (D. Colo.) The 10th Circuit denied Liberty Global’s requests for both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a closely watched federal tax dispute originating in Colorado. Liberty Global had used a series of transactions known as “Project Soy” to repatriate foreign corporate income and generate a deduction under Internal Revenue Code § 245A following enactment of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. A Colorado federal district court concluded that Liberty Global was not entitled to the deduction under the economic substance doctrine, and a 10th Circuit panel previously agreed.
The court’s active judges were polled on Liberty Global’s request for en banc review, but the vote failed to obtain the necessary majority. Judges Harris Hartz, Timothy Tymkovich and Allison Eid voted to rehear the case en banc, with Eid writing a dissent joined by Hartz and Tymkovich. The court also granted pending motions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations seeking permission to file amicus briefs. The denial leaves intact the panel’s decision that the economic substance doctrine can apply when a taxpayer structures transactions to obtain a tax benefit that Congress did not intend. Read the opinion.