Scott M. Matheson, Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit circuit Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 28 signed orders read

How Judge Matheson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He reads a general appellate mandate in light of the opinion that produced it, not in isolation -- a remand that forecloses one specific ground for a sentencing enhancement does not bar the enhancement on a different, unaddressed ground.

“The district court may consult the opinion for guidance as to the intent of the mandate.”

In qualified-immunity appeals he looks for a specific case putting the specific conduct on notice, not a generalized constitutional principle -- an internal email raising concerns through the chain of command is not automatically 'clearly established' protected speech just because retaliation for public whistleblowing might be.

“Mr. Knopf has failed to show a violation of clearly established federal law on an essential element of his claim.”

Procedural preferences

An interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal that turns on disputed facts rather than a discrete legal question is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, even while a companion defendant's appeal on the same incident proceeds.

“We dismiss the appeals of DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz for lack of jurisdiction because they ask us to resolve issues of fact and do not turn on discrete questions of law.”

Consecutive state sentences are treated as a single continuous stream of custody for habeas purposes, so a challenge to one conviction in the chain remains live even though other convictions would keep the petitioner imprisoned regardless of the outcome.

“Mr. Hagos's kidnapping and murder convictions were imposed consecutively and form a continuous stream. Under Peyton and Garlotte, Mr. Hagos is therefore in custody to seek habeas relief for any of the sentences forming that continuous stream.”

Cautions

A negligent or careless prosecutorial statement, without more, does not show the malice a malicious-prosecution claim requires -- he distinguishes carelessness from the state of mind needed to defeat immunity.

“His theory, the court observed, seemed to be that Ms. Buljko had not carefully reviewed his file to check on the timing of events before she filed the motion to revoke and accompanying arrest warrant application. In the court's view, this was a negligence theory.”

Once a Chapter 7 trustee is appointed, only the trustee has standing over the estate's property -- the debtor and its own counsel lose the ability to appeal orders affecting estate assets.

“The district court dismissed, holding that only the trustee could seek review.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Vauda Virgle Shipp, Jr.
10-5069 · 2011-06-01
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”

United States v. Christopher Roy Chavez
10-2273 · 2011-10-18
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“we affirm Mr. Chavez's conviction and sentence.”

United States v. John Lloyd Whitley
11-8078 · 2012-06-01
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Mr. Whitley challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. ... we affirm.”

United States v. Cruz Garcia
· 2014-05-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of Mr. Garcia's motion to suppress.”

United States v. John Ervin Titley
13-6245 · 2014-11-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We conclude 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A) does not violate equal protection under the Fifth Amendment and affirm Mr. Titley's sentence as based on the requisite three qualifying offenses under the ACCA.”

United States v. Andre Gilmore
14-1088 · 2015-01-16
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Mr. Gilmore moved to suppress evidence of the firearm ... Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.”

Benjamin Rodas-Orellana v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
14-9516 & 14-9548 · 2015-03-02
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“We deny the PFR. Mr. Rodas-Orellana has failed to establish he is a member of a particular social group or that he was persecuted on account of any such membership. ... We also deny Mr. Rodas-Orellana's challenge to the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider.”

United States v. Kizzy Kalu
14-1068 · 2015-06-29
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we affirm the district court.”

United States v. Daniel Enrique Padilla-Esparza
14-2191 · 2015-08-14
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“He then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Mr. Padilla-Esparza now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.”

Abraham Hagos v. Rick Raemisch
14-1497 · 2015-12-29
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We reverse the district court's order dismissing Mr. Hagos's § 2254 petition ... We reverse and remand for consideration of Mr. Hagos's § 2254 petition.”

Aleshia Cyrese Henderson v. Stanley Glanz
14-5077 · 2015-12-28
Appeal (appellants (DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz)) Moot / procedural

“We dismiss the appeals of DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz for lack of jurisdiction because they ask us to resolve issues of fact and do not turn on discrete questions of law.”

Appeal (appellant (DO Thomas)) Granted

“We have jurisdiction over DO Thomas's appeal and determine he is entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Henderson could not show he violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

United States v. William Kurtz
15-2140 · 2016-03-29
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“After carefully examining the record, we agree. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal.”

Put Judge Matheson's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Matheson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Matheson's own signed orders and cites them.