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

Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment in favor of the LWCC, which cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the state claims plaintiffs brought against LWCC, the court need not decide whether the district court correctly determined that LWCC's decision to withhold consent on the settlement was a proper exercise of its power under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Accordingly, the court reversed summary judgment and rendered a judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. View "Venable, et al. v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former employee of the standing trustee for the Western district of Louisiana (defendant), filed suit against defendant alleging violation of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL), Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:301-03, 23:323. Defendant removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The district court determined that removal was proper, and that defendant should be granted summary judgment because he did not qualify as an "employer" under the LEDL. The court concluded that defendant acts under officers of the United States and fell within section 1442(a)(1)'s purview, and defendant has averred a colorable federal defense and was entitled to remove this case under the federal officer removal statute. The court held that summary judgment was proper because defendant did not qualify as an employer under the LEDL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bell v. Thornburg" on Justia Law

This case involved the disappearance of nearly 2,000 boxes of Christmas lights while in transit from China to Mexico. Mari Jose, a Mexican corporation engaged in the import and export business, filed suit against Transmaritime, a logistics company, for loss of its goods in transit under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 14706. On appeal, Transmaritime challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mari Jose. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Mari Jose because Mari Jose failed to establish the first element of its prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment: delivery of the goods in good condition to the carrier. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Distribuidora Mari Jose, S.A. v. Transmaritime, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and convictions for crimes related to his involvement in the disposing of untreated wastewater. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary claims and concluded that the cumulative effect of any alleged error was harmless. Further, the court held that there was no error by the district court in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2Q1.3(b)(4) to defendant whose conduct the enhancement plainly encompassed; the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a two-level downward departure where the district court clearly considered the departure and chose not to apply it in light of the quantity of the discharges involved; the district court did not err in applying a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2Q.3(b)(1)(A) for ongoing, repetitive, continuous discharge of a pollutant; and the court rejected defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Tuma" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, was denied federal habeas relief and seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to pursue his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Petitioner argued that trial counsel failed to submit appropriate death penalty questions to the potential jurors during jury selection; failed to call an investigator as a witness and failed to introduce hospital records at the guilt/innocence phase; and failed to present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase. The court rejected these arguments and denied the request for a COA, concluding that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's decision to deny habeas relief on petitioner's Strickland v. Washington claims. View "Garza v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Island petitioned for review of a modification of a benefits award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWC Act), 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Island's employee had filed claims for benefits under the LHWC Act after he injured his knee on an oil production platform. Island argued that the original judgment was not eligible for modification or alternatively, the facts did not support the modification. The court concluded that both Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass'n and O'Keefe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. clearly established that contrary to Island's position, mistakes of fact were not limited to newly discovered and previously unattainable evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Benefit Review Board's (BRB) decision on this basis. Alternatively, the court concluded that there was evidence to support the ALJ's finding, and the BRB correctly affirmed the modification of the employee's award to include permanent partial benefits. View "Island Operating Co., Inc., et al. v. DOWCP, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for a murder during the course of a robbery, challenged his capital sentence, claiming that he was exempt from execution under Roper v. Simmons. The court held that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court's conclusion that the state habeas court adjudication was an adjudication on the merits that warranted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 254(d), deference. The court also held that no reasonable jurist would find debatable that the district court's decision that petitioner failed to show that the state habeas process resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability. View "Tercero v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of illegal reentry subsequent to removal after conviction of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that defendant had not shown that the district court abused its discretion in its use of the Allen charge; defendant had not met his burden of showing that the Doyle violations the court identified rose to the level of error that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; because the district court heard and considered the investigator's testimony about the relevant portions of the affidavit, including that claim that the companions were forced to cross the border, any error in failing to admit the affidavit was harmless; and because the court affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence, it did not need to address defendant's argument that the court should vacate the revocation of his prior term of supervised release. View "United States v. Andaverde-Tinoco" on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute between plaintiffs, seven elected officials and one citizen, and Galveston County, challenging the County's redistricting following the 2010 census. At issue was whether plaintiffs were the prevailing parties, entitling them to attorney's fees. The court reversed and remanded the district court's award of fees, holding that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties because the injunctive relief plaintiffs achieved was not material to the outcome of the case and, alternatively, nor did this relief directly or materially benefit plaintiffs. View "Petteway, et al. v. Henry, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to knowing unlawful presence in the United States and knowing possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's classification of his 2009 conviction of Residential Burglary under Washington state law as a crime of violence for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The court concluded that the Residential Burglary offense constituted the enumerated generic crime of burglary of a dwelling, and thus the district court correctly classified defendant's prior conviction as a crime of violence for the purposes of section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Guerrero-Navarro" on Justia Law