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

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from their involvement with the Barrio Aztecas, a gang that operated inside prison and outside prison, where it ran a drug distribution network. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendants Nieto and Hernandez on the three counts at issue (racketeering, conspiracy to racketeer, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances) and venue was proper; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for a mistrial; and the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant Nieto. Accordingly,the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nieto, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because neither defendant's identity nor his INS file were suppressible, although the court concluded that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion and clearly violated the Fourth Amendment in stopping defendant. Accordingly, the court was bound by precedent and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano" on Justia Law

Appellees, the Rubins, requested that the district court issue a Writ of Garnishment against the assets of Hamas and HLF after obtaining a judgment against Hamas for damages resulting from a terrorist attack in an outdoor pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The district court executed the writ but the Rubins could not execute against HLF's assets because those assets had been restrained under 21 U.S.C. 853 to preserve their availability for criminal forfeiture proceedings. The district court subsequently denied the government's motion to dismiss the Rubins' third-party petition under section 853(n) to assert their interests in the restrained assets and vacated the preliminary order of forfeiture. The district court held that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), Pub. L. No. 107-297, title II, 201, 116 Stat. 2337, allowed the Rubins to execute against HLF's assets not withstanding the government's forfeiture proceedings. The court reversed, holding that section 853(n) did not provide the Rubins with a basis to prevail in the ancillary proceeding; TRIA did not provide the Rubins a basis to assert their interest in the forfeited property; TRIA did not trump the criminal forfeiture statute; and the in custodia legis doctrine did not preclude the district court's in personam jurisdiction over HLF. View "United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition because it was filed after the one-year statute of limitations period under section 2244(d)(1)(A). The court held that petitioner was not entitled to statutory tolling because he failed to show that state action prevented him from filing his petition. The court also held that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to show an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from timely filing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Clarke v. Rader" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from eleven notices of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAAs) issued by the IRS with respect to three Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) treated as partnerships for tax purposes. The IRS claimed that the partnerships' transactions provided one partner with an illegal tax shelter to avoid taxes on his unrelated personal capital gain of the same approximate amount. The court affirmed the district court's determinations that (1) the FOCus transactions lacked economic substance and must be disregarded for tax purposes; (2) the negligence penalty was applicable and the partnerships were not entitled to the reasonable cause defense; and (3) the valuation misstatement penalty was inapplicable. The court vacated and rendered judgment for plaintiffs as to the remaining claims addressing the FPAAs premised on the government's alternative theory under Treasury Regulation 1.701-2 and the district court's approval of the alternative substantial understatement penalty. View "Nevada Partners Fund, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against State Farm, alleging that State Farm was intentionally engaging in delaying tactics to avoid paying on insurance policies. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to any breach of contract claim. Because plaintiff established, as a matter of law, that State Farm had no arguable or legitimate basis for certain periods of delay, she was entitled to present her compensatory damages claim to a finder of fact upon remand. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment as to plaintiff's bad faith claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "James v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action alleging that he was the owner of certain mineral rights in the land previously sold to the Sabine River Authority. The court disagreed, concluding that the language used in the conveyance deeds did not demonstrate that the disputed mineral rights were transferred to plaintiff's predecessors-in-interest. Therefore, defendant owned the disputed mineral rights and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Temple v. McCall, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his motion for attorneys' fees in his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, suit against the IRS. The court applied the Open Government Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E)(ii)(II), and concluded that plaintiff was eligible to attorneys' fees where he filed his FOIA suit after enduring the IRS's continued and unexplained delays in responding to his request for almost a year; only after he filed and served his lawsuit did the IRS first begin to produce some of the responsive documents; and the remaining documents were still not produced for years following further litigation. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for the district court to assess plaintiff's entitlement. View "Batton v. Internal Revenue Service" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to firearm and robbery offenses and subsequently challenged his sentence on appeal. The court concluded, based on the record, that the district court's factual finding that defendant had a management role in the robbery under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) was not clearly erroneous. The court concluded, however, that the district court's factual finding of bodily injury under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) was clearly erroneous because it was based on unreliable facts in the presentencing report. Because this was not harmless error, the court vacated the bodily-injury enhancement and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Zuniga" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate her conviction. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether defendant's suppression motion would have been meritorious. The court vacated the COA and remanded for clarification as to whether defendant had made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and was entitled to a COA on that issue. View "United States v. Ratliff" on Justia Law