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

Defendant appealed his revocation sentence, contending that the district court impermissibly based the length of the sentence on the court's perception of his rehabilitative needs, in violation of Tapia v. United States. The court held that the district court violated Tapia because it lengthened defendant's sentence based on rehabilitative needs and this error warranted reversal. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Culbertson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition, arguing that his trial attorney interfered with his federal constitutional right to testify at his state trial for armed robbery and felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as unexhausted because he failed to disclaim that argument during state habeas proceedings. View "Johnson v. Cain" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a maritime accident where a vessel owned by Bertucci hit the Leo Kerner bridge in Louisiana. Claimants, residents of an affected community, argued that they suffered damages as a result of the accident. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims, holding that the case was barred by Supreme Court and circuit precedent. The law of this circuit did not allow recovery of purely economic claims absent physical injury to a proprietary interest in a maritime negligence suit. Claimants failed to point to any facts that might plausibly state a claim for physical damages of any kind. View "In Re: Bertucci Contracting" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for various offenses concerning child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1) "vulnerable victim" enhancement were it was clear that the children depicted were the victims of defendant's crime, and that at least some of these children were especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. The court found no reason to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in applying and balancing the sentencing factors, and therefore held that defendant had not shown his sentence to be substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

While serving time in the county jail, plaintiff labored in a county work program under the sheriff's supervision. At issue was whether plaintiff was covered under the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act (MWCA), Mississippi Code 47-5-417, -567, and thus was entitled to compensation benefits for injuries sustained while he was on work detail. The county and the medical corporation that treated plaintiff sought reimbursement of medical expenses from the Mississippi Public Entities Workers' Compensation Trust (MPE), the provider of workers' compensation insurance from the county. The court concluded as a matter of law that the county had no enforceable contract to hire plaintiff, a prerequisite of coverage, and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of MPE. View "Vuncannon, et al v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Transocean to recover maintenance and cure for a back injury allegedly sustained on the job. The district court awarded summary judgment to Transocean on its counterclaim to recover benefits it already paid to plaintiff, concluding that Transocean's successful McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp. defense automatically established its right to restitution - a right of action never before recognized in maritime law. The court concluded that, though most courts have accepted McCorpen, Transocean's attempt to invoke the case as an affirmative right of recovery finds virtually no support, and the court was not inclined to accede. Accordingly, the court rejected Transocean's claim, and reversed and remanded the district court's judgment. View "Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged one of two counts of his drug-trafficking conviction for insufficiency of evidence and the other for an erroneously submitted jury instruction. The court clarified that because the Supreme Court had stated and repeatedly reaffirmed the constitutional test for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction, Jackson v. Virginia, the statements inconsistent with Jackson that have appeared in some Fifth Circuit cases must be disavowed. Based on the Jackson standard, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of knowing, voluntary participation in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that the district court neither erred nor abused its discretion in giving the aiding and abetting jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vargas-Ocampo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of her civil rights action against the District. Plaintiff sought review of her claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, for the District's alleged gross mismanagement of her Individualized Education Program (IEP) and failure to reasonably accommodate her disabilities. Because plaintiff plausibly stated that the District acted with gross misjudgment in failing to further modify her IEP, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Because plaintiff appealed only the dismissal of her Rehabilitation Act claim, the court did not address the district court's rulings as to the other claims. View "Stewart v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

This case involved a contractual interpretation dispute over whether overriding royalties were payable out of the initial oil and gas production from a tract of land on the outer continental shelf (OCS) adjacent to Louisiana. The court concluded, under applicable Louisiana law, that the "calculate and pay" clauses in the overriding royalty interests assignment contracts did not clearly and explicitly express the intent that overriding royalty payments shall be suspended whenever the U.S. landowner royalties were suspended under the OCS Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(a); and that the "calculate and pay" clauses must be interpreted further in search of the common intent of the parties to the assignment contracts. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Total E&P USA, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and on appeal, he asserted that the imposition of a three-year term of supervised release (SR) was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Even assuming the district court did not previously conduct the factual consideration described in U.S.S.G. 5D1.1, defendant's criminal record supported a finding that the imposition of SR would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Because defendant had raised a possibility of a different result, but not the requisite probability, the error did not affect his substantial rights. Further, the district court did not err in imposing the length of the SR, which was within the applicable guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cancino-Trinidad" on Justia Law