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

Defendant was convicted of health-care fraud in connection with his durable medical equipment (DME) business. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and the district court's order of restitution. The court concluded that, in light of all the evidence, there was no meaningful probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant, even if it had heard his mother and another unidentified individual testify that defendant was law-abiding. Accordingly, such error was harmless and the court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court also concluded that, by calculating restitution on the basis of the presentence investigation report's exaggerated "ceiling," the district court indisputably awarded restitution for claims outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. Because doing so was plain error, the court vacated the restitution award and remanded for recalculation. View "United States v. De Leon, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). On appeal, defendant challenged her sentence and conviction, which stemmed from defendant's use of her political influence and power to further the objectives of a criminal enterprise. The court concluded that the voir dire in this case was sufficient and rejected defendant's challenges to the Government's use of peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky; there was no merit to defendant's assertion that she would be unable to raise a Double Jeopardy argument were she ever prosecuted a second time for conspiracy to violate RICO predicated on the same conduct alleged in the indictment; and the district court plainly erred in calculating the sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment based on money laundering instead of mail fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's convict, but vacated the sentence, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pratt" on Justia Law

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq., requires that certain employers provide written notice within 60 days in advance of any "mass layoff" at a "single site of employment." Plaintiffs filed suit against Signal, alleging that Signal's reduction in employment constituted a mass layoff under the WARN Act and Signal violated the Act by failing to provide proper notice. The district court concluded that Signal's two facilities constituted a single site of employment because they fell into a regulatory exception for "truly unusual organizational situations," and thus, workforce levels were to be measured across both facilities. The district court also concluded that the "snapshot" date of June 24, 2009, was representative of ordinary employment levels at Signal. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that there was a mass layoff under the Act where the parties have stipulated that there was a mass layoff during the 90-day period following July 24, 2009, the date of the first layoff alleged by plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davis, et al. v. Signal Int'l Texas GP, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, chicken growers, filed suit and obtained a money judgment against PPC for damages arising from PPC's unlawful attempt to manipulate or control poultry prices. The court concluded that PPC's conduct was merely the legitimate response of a rational market participant to changes in a dynamic market. If a firm inadvertently over-produces a good and drives down prices, it did not break the law by cutting production so that prices could recover. Therefore, the court held that PPC did not violate the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq., by reducing its commodity chicken output. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of PPC. View "Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Agerton, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employer seeking deferred compensation payments. The district court held that plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements in their Employment Agreement contracts with the employer constituted a plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Because plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements did not necessitate an ongoing administrative scheme, there was no ERISA plan. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that plaintiffs' state law claims were not preempted by ERISA. View "Cantrell, et al. v. Briggs & Veselka Co." on Justia Law

Defendant and his co-conspirators were indicted for, inter alia, conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered pursuant to the wiretaps on Target Telephones 3 and 4. The court found that the district court did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction and such non-compliance implicated a core concern of the statute and required suppression of the evidence obtained from the wiretap. The court also found that the government failed to comply with minimization protocols when monitoring defendant's May 16, 2009 phone call. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion and remanded for further proceedings View "United States v. North" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of murder-for-hire and sentenced to death. Petitioner subsequently sought a certificate of appealability after the district court denied him 28 U.S.C. 2254 relief. Defendant asserted a Wiggins claim for constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. The court believed that there was virtually no chance - let alone a "reasonable possibility" - that petitioner's new habeas evidence would have affected the sentencing outcome. The court concluded that, because there was no debatable issue on prejudice, the court need not reach the question of whether defendant's trial counsel's failure to introduce new habeas evidence at trial amounted to deficient representation. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a certificate of appealability. View "Ruiz v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2671-80, seeking compensatory damages for loss of property and personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence and malice of the VA. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the VA's motion to dismiss where the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), 38 U.S.C. 511, and in the alternative, the United States' sovereign immunity, barred the district court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. View "King v. US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, landowners, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., seeking damages from the government for its role in the design, construction, and maintenance of a portion of a highway that prevented sufficient drainage periods of heavy rainfall. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the district court erred when it declined to apply Louisiana's continuing-tort doctrine to delay commencement of the running of the FTCA's two-year limitations period. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not been aggrieved by a Louisiana continuing tort and have failed to bear their burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claim was time-barred. View "Young, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to transporting aliens within the United States for private financial gain. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, considered in connection with the Brignoni-Ponce factors, the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's truck. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garza" on Justia Law