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

These are consolidated appeals of Defendants Ted Murray, David Lapin, and Jeffrey Wigginton. Defendants were convicted and sentenced for crimes related to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. The district court subsequently reopened the three sentences that it had imposed more than six months earlier, adding to each a requirement that each defendant make restitution. Because the court lacked the authority to do so, the court reversed. View "United States v. Murray, et al" on Justia Law

The DWC issued a cease and desist letter to plaintiff arguing that his use of the words "Texas" and "Workers' Comp" in the domain name of his website violated section 419.002 of the Texas Labor Code. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the statute was unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the regulation at issue was content-neutral and did not amount to a prior restraint. The court reversed the district court's finding that the law was constitutional as applied to plaintiff, and remanded to permit the parties to more fully develop the record on this issue. View "Gibson v. Texas Dept. of Ins., et al" on Justia Law

Debtors voluntarily filed a joint Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. At issue was whether social security benefits were included in a debtor's projected disposable income in the formulation of a Chapter 13 plan and the calculation of the future payments the debtor would be required to make to creditors. Because including social security income in projected disposable income would violate both the Bankruptcy Code and the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 407, the court held that social security benefits were not included in a debtor's projected disposable income. The court also held that retention of exempt social security benefits alone was legally insufficient to support a finding of bad faith under the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Beaulieu, Jr. v. Ragos, et al" on Justia Law

This case involved an interlocutory appeal from an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification where the certified class putatively consisted of various governmental entities within the State of Louisiana whose representatives entered into contracts with defendants for cellular telephone service. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in deceptive billing practices that constituted a breach of contract and violated the state's unfair trade and consumer protection laws. The court agreed with defendants that the district court abused its discretion when it certified plaintiffs' class because, in doing so, it effectively certified an "opt in" class, which was impermissible under Rule 23. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated, remanding for further proceedings. View "Ackal, et al v. Centennial Beauregard Cellular, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and attendant regulations, which prohibited federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21. The court held that plaintiffs had standing; the challenged federal laws passed constitutional muster even if they implicated the Second Amendment guarantee; and under intermediate scrutiny, the challenged laws were constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the ban violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment where plaintiffs failed to show that Congress irrationally imposed age qualifications on commercial arms sales. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Rifle Association, et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the church alleging that the church terminated him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court dismissed the suit based on the ministerial exception, which barred employment-discrimination suits by ministers against their churches, pursuant to Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC. Because the court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the ministerial exception applied where plaintiff performed an important function during the church service as an accompanist, and therefore barred plaintiff's suit, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cannata v. Catholic Diocese of Austin, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, which was calculated using an enhancement applicable to aggravated felonies. The court held that, even if categorizing defendant's manslaughter conviction as a crime of violence were plain error, there was no substantial harm because his separate conviction for evading arrest would have been sufficient to support the same 16-level sentencing enhancement. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of 180 months, an upward departure from the guidelines imprisonment range. View "United States v. Vargas-Soto" on Justia Law

The Stanford Defendants brought this case under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 24.001 et seq., to recover approximately $1.6 million in political contributions made to various political committees by the Stanford Defendants between 2000 and 2008. Because the court concluded that (1) the Receiver could stand in the shoes of the creditors of the Stanford Defendants, (2) the Receiver's TUFTA claims were brought within one year after the transfers were or reasonably could have been discovered by the claimant, and (3) they were not preempted, the court rejected the Committees' arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign, et al" on Justia Law

An Abbey of the Benedictine Order of the Catholic Church challenged as unconstitutional rules issued by the Louisiana Board of Funeral Directors granting funeral homes an exclusive right to sell caskets. The district court enjoined their enforcement, finding that they denied equal protection and due process of law. After examining the record, the court had doubts about the constitutionality of the State Board's regulation of intrastate casket sales and therefore, certified a question for the Supreme Court of Louisiana. View "St. Joseph Abbey, et al v. Castille, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry following a deportation. Defendant had earlier been convicted of a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The district court increased defendant's sentence because it considered the earlier crime to be a "drug trafficking offense" as that term was defined by U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of "conspiracy" as not requiring an over act. The error was plain and affected defendant's substantial rights because the error increased the term of his sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno" on Justia Law