Carolyn B. McHugh
How Judge McHugh rules, drawn from 72 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McHugh
Carolyn Baldwin McHugh is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge McHugh received a commission on March 14, 2014.
Judge McHugh's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McHugh's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge McHugh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a categorical-approach sentencing case, she found the panel’s statutory analysis largely consonant with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Becerril-Lopez.
“Our reasoning is largely consonant with that expressed by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Becerril-Lopez.”
In review of a USFS decision, she found no scientific support in the administrative record for changing the model’s results using local factors.
“The USFS does not identify any scientific support in the administrative record for the contention that the model's results can be changed using the local factors.”
In an excessive-force appeal involving Officers Vick and Girdner, she held that a reasonable jury could find facts under which the officers lacked qualified immunity.
“a reasonable jury could find facts under which Officers Vick and Girdner would not be entitled to qualified immunity”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Vazquez-Garcia, McHugh applied Rule 32’s requirement that a defendant who challenges presentence-report facts identify why the information is unreliable or inaccurate.
“Rule 32(i) thus imposes 'an affirmative duty [on defendants] to make a showing that the information in the [PSR] was unreliable and articulate the reasons why the facts contained therein were untrue or inaccurate.'”
In this appeal, she reached a subject-matter-jurisdiction question in the interest of judicial economy.
“In the interest of judicial economy, however, we then proceed to the question of subject matter jurisdiction.”
In a sentencing appeal, she found the district court’s failure to address multiple Guidelines factors prevented review and required reversal of the sentence.
“The district court's failure to discuss multiple Guidelines factors impedes our review and compels the conclusion the sentence is not substantively reasonable.”
In Abedi, McHugh held that an interview delayed at least four weeks after immigration release was revoked was not prompt under the governing regulation. The panel did not decide whether the regulation imposes the same forty-eight-hour benchmark used for probable-cause hearings.
“we hold that the Government violated its regulations by failing to ‘promptly’ provide Mr. Abedi with an informal interview and opportunity to be heard on its reasons for revoking his release.”
Cautions
In Rio Grande Foundation v. Toulouse Oliver, McHugh held that the appellants’ disagreement with the challenged requirement did not itself establish an injury in fact for standing.
“This is little more than a statement that Appellants disagree with the requirement, and disagreement is not an injury-in-fact.”
In Surat, the court found an excessive-force violation but reversed the denial of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time.
“violated Ms. Surat’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force, it erred in denying him qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.”
In Flux Drive, McHugh treated a fee-recovery objection raised for the first time on appeal as waived because the district court had not decided it and the appellants made no plain-error argument.
“Because Plaintiffs did not raise this argument before the district court, the district court did not pass on it, and they do not argue plain error on appeal, the argument is waived.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
“For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Mr. Lemmons's request for injunctive relief, his motion for appointment of counsel, his motion to supplement/amend his complaint, and each of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.”
“We therefore reverse the district court's order vacating Mr. Williams's conviction for lack of jurisdiction. But we exercise our discretion to treat Mr. Williams's appellate brief as a request to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), and we grant that request in part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we deny Mr. Parker a COA and dismiss the matter. We deny Mr. Parker's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Mr. Gregory a COA, DENY him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISS the matter.”
“Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm.”
“The district court did not err in concluding that a conviction under section 211 is a crime of violence. We therefore affirm Mr. Castillo's sentence.”
“Applying the deferential standard required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we affirm the district court's denial of Mr. Ryder's petition for habeas relief.”
“Having concluded complete diversity between the parties is lacking here, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“We granted Mr. Smith's request for a certificate of appealability on these four issues, and we now affirm the district court's judgment. ... Thus, applying the deferential standard mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, we affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief.”
“Deputy Bethards filed a timely appeal. We affirm the district court's decision.”
“After our independent examination of the record, we conclude the appeal is, indeed, wholly frivolous. We therefore grant counsel's motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.”
Draft for Judge McHugh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McHugh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McHugh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace