Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his non-Guidelines sentence of 108-months of imprisonment for illegal reentry. The court held that the district court did not lack jurisdiction to impose the 108-month sentence. The court held, however, that given the entire sentencing hearing, particularly the district court's implicit threat to raise defendant's sentence if he questioned the non-Guidelines sentence, the court concluded that the 108-month, non-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because it constituted a clear error in judgment in balancing the sentencing factors under the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded the judgment. View "United States v. Gerezano-Rosales" on Justia Law

National Union brought this suit against AEC, seeking contribution to National Union's settlement of claims arising from the crash of a helicopter operated by National Union's insured. On appeal, National Union challenged the Texas district court's choice-of-law ruling and the Hawaii district court's refusal to allow jurisdictional discovery regarding AEC's Hawaii contacts before transferring the case. Because the court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals of the Hawaii district court's orders, the court agreed with the Texas district court's choice-of-law ruling, and affirmed the judgment. View "National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. American Eurocopter Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plains Capital and Boardwalk appealed a judgment finding them liable for conversion of the proceeds from a sale of a car that was subject to a tax lien. Boardwalk sold the car and gave the proceeds to Plains Capital to get Plains Capital to release the title, and Plains Capital applied the money to the taxpayer's debt. The IRS attempted to obtain the proceeds by levy after Plains Capital had applied the money to the debt, so Plains Capital claimed it no longer had any of the property. The court held that neither party was liable for conversion under Texas law but that Plains Capital was liable for failure to honor a tax levy. Because the court found that Plains Capital was liable for failure to honor a tax levy, interest accrued from the date it failed to honor the levy until the date the judgment was satisfied, at the underpayment rate in I.R.C. 6621(a)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Boardwalk Motor Sports, Ltd., et al." on Justia Law

Vanderbilt sued to foreclose against appellees for defaulting on their installment payments on a mobile home and appellees responded by claiming that they had been released from any underlying debt on the retail installment contract. Intervenors claimed that Vanderbilt, CMH, and their parent company CHI, had filed false liens on their land as collateral for appellees' retail installment contract. The court affirmed the judgment and award of damages with respect to intervenors' claims. The court reversed and remanded the judgment as to Vanderbilt's claims against appellees, as well as appellees' counterclaims. View "Vanderbilt Mtge. and Fin. Inc. v. Flores, et al." on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood obtained a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of regulations which stated that health care providers participating in a Medicaid-like program must not perform or promote elective abortions. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of these regulations, reasoning that the regulations likely violated Planned Parenthood's rights to free speech and association, and denied them equal protection of the laws. The court held that the district court issued the preliminary injunction based on a wholesale assessment of the regulations' constitutionality, which gave insufficient attention to Texas' authority to subsidize speech of its choosing within its programs. Accordingly, the order of the district court granting the preliminary injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Planned Parenthood Assoc., et al. v. Suehs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her social security disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ improperly disregarded evidence from her treating physicians without re-contacting him to obtain further documentation. Because (1) the ALJ had no duty to re-contact that physician where the record contained sufficient evidence from other physicians and (2) any error was harmless even if the ALJ were required to re-contact the doctor, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the district court's judgment denying his petition for habeas relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan. Petitioner argued that Martinez invalidated the district court's conclusion that he procedurally defaulted on his certificate of appealability issues. The court concluded that Texas procedures did not mandate that ineffectiveness claims be heard in the first instance in habeas proceedings and they did not by law deprive Texas defendants of counsel-and court-driven guidance in pursuing ineffectiveness claims. Therefore, the court held that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Martinez for his ineffectiveness claims, as Texas procedures entitled him to review through counselled motions for new trial and direct appeal. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's motion to vacate the district court's judgment. View "Ibarra v. Thaler" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant liable to plaintiff under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.54, for injuries caused by a defect that rendered one of its stucco pumps unreasonably dangerous. The central disputes on appeal were whether the theories offered by plaintiff's experts met the standards for scientific reliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence and whether the jury's imposition of liability for a defect in "construction or composition" of the pump could stand. The court held that none of the expert evidence was improperly admitted and that there was no basis to set aside the jury's finding of a defect under Section 9:2800.55. The court considered the comparative fault challenges, plaintiff's Rule 50 motion on a design defect under Section 9:2800.56, and finally, explained why the increase in the medical award was appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict as modified by the district court. View "Roman v. Western Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, developer of a passive radio frequency identification (RFID) system for commercial use, alleged a number of Texas claims against a group of software companies in state court. Defendants moved the suit to federal court and obtained a dismissal from the district court on the basis that all of plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Copyright Act, 28 U.S.C. 1338. The court held that the complete preemption doctrine applied in copyright preemption cases; plaintiff had pled factual allegations that at least in part fell outside of the scope of copyright; and defendants have argued enough of a basis for preemption on plaintiff's conversion claim to stay in federal court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's Act 490, which amended Louisiana's Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law of 2001. The district court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss, holding that the claims were not ripe. The court affirmed because plaintiffs have failed to show that hardship would result from withholding court consideration at this time. View "Choice Inc. of Texas, et al. v. Greenstein" on Justia Law