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

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of possession of child pornography and three counts of distribution of child pornography. The court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the inculpatory emails found on one of his email accounts; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; and defendant's convictions were not multiplicitous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woerner" on Justia Law

Sundown claimed that Mid-Continent prematurely tendered the limits of Sundown's primary and umbrella policies while undercutting Sundown's ability to defend a class action suit for environmental damage following Hurricane Katrina and Rita. The court held that the district court did not err when it held that there was no cause of action under Texas common law for breach of an insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing in the context of third-party claims; Texas rather than Louisiana law governed Sundown's claims for breach of the duty; and the district court did not err in holding against Sundown on its statutory claims for unfair settlement practices. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Eland Energy Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against a law enforcement officer, the City of Amarillo, and other defendants, alleging that the officer had wrongfully arrested him two years earlier. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit because he failed to show good cause for the delay in perfection of service. Because the district court's warning of dismissal and grant of extensions accompanied by generous allotments of time did not influence plaintiff to effect service properly, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claim. View "Thrasher v. Amarillo Police Dept, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff had petitioned under 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) for review of his denied naturalization application but the district court determined that he could not demonstrate good moral character as a matter of law, a prerequisite of naturalization. The court affirmed and held that a "hearing de novo" within the meaning of section 1421(c) encompassed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 review on summary judgment; consideration of prior conduct was appropriate where the conduct was relevant to assessing the applicant's moral character or present conduct indicated poor moral character; affidavit evidence of present conduct, without more, could not create a genuine issue of material fact as to moral character where it conflicted with probative evidence of prior conduct; and collateral estoppel applied to an applicant's testimony in naturalization proceedings where that testimony, if credited, attacked an essential premise underlying a prior criminal conviction. View "Kariuki v. Tarango, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a government contract to dredge a portion of the Houston-Galveston navigation channel. At issue was the scope of a corporate officer's personal liability under 31 U.S.C. 3713 (the Priority Statute). The court concluded that the decision of a corporate officer rendered pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., was a "claim" within the meaning of the Priority Statute; a debtor's representative had "notice" of that claim, necessary to trigger personal liability under the Priority Statute, when he had actual knowledge of its existence, whether or not he consulted counsel as to its validity; no genuine issue of material fact remained, and the government was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affirmative defenses and denying the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Renda" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted with possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same. Defendant transported four pounds of methamphetamine that was secreted within a cooler. A jury reasonably found that he conspired to distribute the drugs, and the government permissibly used financial documents to undermine his alibi. Because he was not a minor participant in the conspiracy and obstructed justice when he testified, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Perez-Solis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) for attempting to persuade, induce, or entice individuals whom he believed were eleven and thirteen years old to engage in sexual activity for which a person could be criminally charged under a Texas aggravated sexual assault statute. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where defendant demonstrated sufficient intent to persuade, induce, or entice a minor in violation of section 2422(b) in his emails to the undercover police officer. View "United States v. Caudill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his suit alleging claims of equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff stated a claim for relief that was cognizable under ERISA, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara. Because relief was available under the surcharge doctrine under Amara, the court did not address the equitable estoppel claim and the district court was free to consider that claim on remand. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant Entergy Mississippi where plaintiff failed to allege that Entergy Mississippi sponsored or administered the plan or made any decisions with respect to his benefits. View "Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim against one corrections officer at the initial screening stage and before the filing of any responsive pleadings. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's denial of medical care claim where the officers did not show deliberate indifference regarding plaintiff's denial of medical treatment and because the officers took plaintiff to see a V.A. hospital physician after the incident at issue and transported him subsequently to the prison medical department for treatment. In regards to the claim regarding plaintiff's injury in the van, the issue was moot. As for the denial of medical care claim, allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint would have been futile and the district court did not err in declining to provide leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rogers v. Boatright, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants Heard and Lambert were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States by failing to pay and impeding the IRS's collection of employment taxes. Heard was convicted of additional offenses. Both defendants raised a number of challenges to their convictions and sentences. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict Heard of bribery of a public official; the district court did not err in admitting lay testimony of one of Heard's former employees; Heard's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on Lambert's withdrawal defense based on a six-year statute of limitations; the district court did not err in denying Lambert's motion for judgment of acquittal based on his withdrawal from the conspiracy; any error in finding sufficient notice for Rule 404(b) evidence was harmless; Lambert's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated when the district court refused to allow him to cross-examine an IRS revenue agent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of two witnesses concerning Lambert's history of ensuring that their payroll taxes were paid; and Lambert's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed both defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Heard, Jr., et al" on Justia Law