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

Defendants were convicted on charges stemming from a sting operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Defendants worked with an undercover agent to plan an armed home invasion with the aim of stealing a large quantity of drugs. On appeal, defendants challenged their convictions and sentences on a number of grounds. The court held that the district court's only error occurred when it applied a two-level sentence enhancement to the drug conspiracy charge that should not have been applied. Defendants' other arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cervantes, et al" on Justia Law

Mariner's Cove Townhomes Association appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the pleadings for the United States. The district court held that the Association was not entitled to just compensation for the diminution of its assessment base resulting from the government's condemnation of fourteen properties in the Mariner's Cove Development. The court found that the Association's right to collect assessments was a property interest, but the loss of the Association's assessment base was incidental to the condemnation and was barred by the consequential loss rule. Accordingly, the court held that the loss of the Association's right to collect assessments on those properties was not compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. View "United States v. Land" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, struck by an Amtrak train across railroad tracks owned and maintained by Illinois Central, claimed that Illinois Central failed to signalize the crossing properly. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also held that Illinois Central demonstrated that the crossing at issue was not "unusually dangerous" as a matter of Mississippi law. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Illinois Central. View "Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his claim for disability-insurance benefits and supplemental-security-income benefits. The magistrate judge recommended reversing the SSA's denial of benefits and remanded for plaintiff's claim to the SSA for further proceedings. The district court then entered an order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted plaintiff's counsel's request and award for attorneys' fees. At issue in this appeal was the type of judgment for which a district court could grant attorneys' fees under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 406(b). The court reversed the district court's denial of attorneys' fees, concluding that the district court's construction of section 406(b) unavoidably reduced the likelihood that an attorney who undertook a disability benefits representation would receive reasonable compensation for his work. Section 406(b) fees were authorized in cases where an attorney obtained a favorable decision on remand and the SSA has not opposed such fees for over 25 years. View "Jackson v. Astrue" on Justia Law

FM was awarded damages stemming from an industrial accident that destroyed a waste treatment plant at an oil refinery plant owned by Alon. On appeal, Alon challenged the damage determination. The court affirmed the damage determination, concluding that the district court was clearly presented with two permissible views of the evidence; few records were available to estimate the cost of rebuilding the plant at issue, which counseled in favor of using a multiplier; and the 2.25 multiplier used by the district court was well within the range recommended by the witnesses and was consistent with past experiences. View "Factory Mutual Ins., Co. v. Alon USA, L.P., et al" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between a natural gas clearinghouse, Dynegy, and two separate entities that managed refinery plants, Ergon Refining and Ergon-WV. Dynegy and Ergon Refining appealed the district court's holding that Dynegy had no contractual duty to Ergon Refining to attempt to secure replacement gas after declaring force majeure in response to hurricane damage, but did have such a duty to Ergon-WV under a separate contract. Although the district court mistakenly concluded that the Ergon Refining contract was ambiguous, it nevertheless correctly used extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' understanding of the contract's "reasonable dispatch" clause. The district court erred, however, in concluding that the Ergon-WV contract unambiguously required Dynegy to attempt to secure replacement gas. Therefore, the court held that neither contract required Dynegy to attempt to secure replacement gas during the force majeure period and affirmed the district court's ruling on the Ergon Refining contract and reversed with respect to the Ergon-WV contract. View "Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. Dynegy Marketing & Trade" on Justia Law

Defendant, a New Orleans Police Department Captain and Traffic Division commander, was convicted of crimes related to his involvement with a scheme to defraud Entergy, a New Orleans-based utilities provider. The court held that the district court's issuance of the deliberate ignorance instruction was erroneous, but the error was harmless; the district court correctly recognized that the standard Rule 404(b) instruction to the jury on "other acts" would need to be modified; to the extent the introduction of the Rule 404(b) evidence was erroneous, the doctrine of invited error applied; there was no Confrontation Clause violation nor abuse of discretion in limiting defendant's counsel's cross-examination of the codefendant; the district court did not clearly err in applying either the public official sentencing guidelines enhancement or the high-level or sensitive position enhancement; the district court erred in finding more than one bribe, and it should have therefore declined to apply the corresponding two-level sentencing guidelines enhancement; the district court erred in its calculation of the expected benefit; the district court's consideration of the 30-year statutory maximum was improper but it was harmless; and the sentencing guidelines enhancement errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Roussel" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence based on his conviction under Georgia Code 16-5-70(b), which the district court concluded was a crime of violence. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the statute under which defendant was convicted did not require a showing of physical force. View "United States v. Resendiz-Moreno" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA that he was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The IJ concluded that petitioner's conviction for attempted sexual assault under Texas Penal Code section 22.011 was a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(b) because the offense presented a substantial risk of the use of physical force against another. When petitioner appealed the IJ's order of removal, the BIA dismissed the appeal. Because the record did not establish that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), the court granted his petition and vacated the order of removal. View "Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with threatening to kill the President, a former President, and a federal law enforcement officer. On appeal, defendant challenged an order of the district court directing the BOP to involuntarily administer psychiatric medicine to him for the purpose of restoring his competency to stand trial. The court found that the BOP satisfactorily complied with the 1992 version of CFR 549.43(a)(5), which required that a psychiatrist hearing officer "determine whether treatment or psychotropic medication was necessary in order to attempt to make the inmate competent for trial." In light of Sell v. United States, the court affirmed the district court's order approving involuntary medication for the purpose of restoring defendant to competency. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law