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

The Government filed three applications under section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2701-2712, seeking evidence relevant to three separate criminal investigations. At issue on appeal was whether court orders authorized by the Act to compel cell phone service providers to produce the historical cell site information of their subscribers were per se unconstitutional. The court concluded that cell site data are business records and should be analyzed under that line of Supreme Court precedent; because the magistrate judge and district court treated the data as tracking information, they applied the wrong legal standard; using the proper framework, the Act's authorization of section 2703(d) orders for historical cell site information if an application meets the lesser "specific and articulable facts" standard, rather than the Fourth Amendment probable cause standard, was not per se unconstitutional; and as long as the Government met the statutory requirements, the Act did not give the magistrate judge discretion to deny the Government's application for such an order. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to grant the applications. View "In re: Application of the U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy thereof. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict all of the defendants; the prosecution sufficiently identified Defendant Magana at trial; challenges to the admission or exclusion of evidence were rejected; challenges to jury instructions were rejected; and challenges to various statements made by the prosecutor were rejected. The court concluded, however, that Count 10 charging Defendant Salas and the ML defendants with a conspiracy violating 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) was submitted to the jury without any special interrogatories asking the jury to specify which of the provisions each defendant had conspired to violate and, consequently, the sentences of these defendants should be vacated and remanded for resentencing. The court otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentences in full. View "United States v. Alaniz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the the district court's reduction of his original sentence from 310 to 286 months under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) after he provided substantial assistance to the government. After determining that the court had jurisdiction of this appeal, the court concluded that the district court provided adequate reasons in ruling on the motion for reduction of defendant's sentence and that defendant failed to identify a single 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factor that the district court should have, but did not, take into account in determining his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lightfoot, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the school district over an alleged violation of First Amendment rights because plaintiffs' third-grade son was prevented from distributing a "candy cane ink pen" with a laminated card containing a religious message. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction because it was well-established under Texas law that the district's governmental immunity was not a mere defense to suit but rather was complete immunity from suit. And because governmental immunity from suit defeated a trial court's jurisdiction, whether a trial court had jurisdiction was a question of law subject to de novo review. Section 110.06 of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 110.001-110.012, required pre-suit notice in the form of certified mail, return receipt requested. The court concluded that the district's governmental immunity was not waived because it was undisputed that plaintiffs' demand letter did not comply with the jurisdictional pre-suit notice requirements. View "Morgan, et al. v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

KBR allegedly accepted kickbacks from two companies angling to win subcontracts on KBR's prime contract to service American armed forces in military theaters across the world. At issue on appeal was whether, and if so under what conditions, the Anti-Kickback Act's (AKA), 41 U.S.C. 55(a)(1), civil suit provision extended vicarious liability to an employer for the acts of its employees. The court discerned no persuasive evidence of congressional intent in section 55(a) to vary from the common law norm of permitting vicarious liability for employee actions taken under apparent authority. The court reversed the district court's ruling granting KBR's motion to dismiss the government's AKA claim, concluding that the district court erred in finding that section 55(a)(1) did not allow the government to allege vicarious liability. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (PCP) and received a three-year term of supervised release following his 110-month sentence. On appeal, he challenged the district court's 24-month sentence for violating two conditions of his supervised release. The court found no procedural error where the district court was not required to provide defendant with pre-sentencing notice of all points raised in the revocation sentencing colloquy, here especially noting the invalid urine samples. Defendant also did not show that the district court relied on materially erroneous information in pronouncing the sentence. The court also found no substantive error where the district court made clear its belief that, in light of defendant's particular history, only a relatively severe, incarcerative revocation sentence was sufficient punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Warren" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to and possessing with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, defendant argued that had the district court only considered the weight attributable to the actual cocaine, he could not have been found guilty of crimes requiring more than five kilograms. Further, defendant argued that his sentencing analysis would have been different. The court concluded, under Chapman v. United States, that because defendant possessed a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, the weight of the mixture and not the weight of the pure cocaine, was controlling. The court also concluded that the Sentencing Guidelines specifically provided that the weight of a controlled substance referred to the entire weight of any mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Villarreal" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner claimed that his untimely filing was caused by his attorney who allegedly misrepresented that his state habeas petition had been filed and, when petitioner discovered that it had not been filed, abandoned him. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the equitable tolling issue. The court, however, concluded that petitioner did not pursue his rights with reasonable diligence. Although petitioner demonstrated reasonable diligence during the latter half of the limitation period, it was not enough to make up for his earlier and subsequent delay. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Palacios v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that defendants conspired to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine; but, because drug quantity was not a an essential element of a conspiracy offense, the court reversed only as to the drug quantity finding, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction; and the court was unpersuaded by defendants' remaining claims of error. View "United States v. Daniels, et al." on Justia Law

A severe rainstorm in 2006 caused two wastewater storage tanks at CITGO's Lake Charles Louisiana refinery to fail and over two million gallons of oil flooded into the surrounding waterways. The United States filed suit against CITGO under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. The district court imposed a $6 million penalty against CITGO and ordered injunctive relief. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the motion to dismiss was properly denied where there was no diligent prosecution by the State and no jurisdictional issue to resolve; the district court needed to have made a finding on the amount of economic benefit and that such a finding was central to the ability of the district court to assess the statutory factors and for an appellate court to review that assessment; the court vacated the civil penalty award and remanded for re-evaluation; at that time, the district court should reconsider its findings with respect to CITGO's conduct, giving special attention to what CITGO knew prior to the oil spill and its delays in addressing recognized deficiencies; and the court rejected the government's argument that the district court erred with respect to its findings on the amount of oil spilled. View "United States, et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law