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

Articles Posted in February, 2014
by
Amzak appealed the district court's summary judgment on its loan loss claims against its title insurance policy provider and related entities. The court concluded that Amzak failed to show that it suffered actual loss because of a failure of title and STL could not be held responsible for any harm suffered by Amzak. The court formalized the holding in First State Bank v. American Title and likewise rejected the guarantee rationale of Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and agreed with the district court's rejection of Amzak's argument that STL breached the title policy at the time of the loan because its mortgage was voidable at that time. The court also disposed of Amzak's negligence claim where STL's delay in making a complete filing of Amzak's mortgage was not a legal cause of Amzak's loss. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Amzak Capital Mgmt. v. Stewart Title" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, sentenced to death for three murders, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Allegedly without consulting petitioner, his counsel decided not to file a timely appeal. Upon motion, the district court then vacated and reentered its judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), allowing petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days of the reentered judgment. In Case No. 13-70006, the Director appealed from the district court's grant of petitioner's motion to vacate and reenter judgment. In Case No. 13-70002, petitioner appealed the reentered judgment, requesting a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that petitioner was solely using a Rule 60(b) motion as a means of achieving an untimely appeal. Under Supreme Court precedent and the court's precedent, the district court lacked the power to circumvent the rules for timely appeals in the manner it did. The court vacated the order granting relief and reentered judgment. The March 2012 judgment is a "live" judgment as to which petitioner's appeal was, admittedly, untimely. Accordingly, the court granted the Director's motion to dismiss Case No. 13-70002 for want of jurisdiction. The court vacated Case No. 13-70006. View "Perez v. Stephens" on Justia Law

by
After defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender and to meet with his counselor, defendant was sentenced to a prison term plus an additional period of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not explaining how Special Condition No. 6, which prohibited defendant from possessing, using, or purchasing sexually stimulating or oriented materials, was reasonably related to the statutory factors. Moreover, the court concluded that it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that this condition was reasonably related to the sentencing factors. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

by
Defendant, convicted of methamphetamine-related offenses, appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in assessing two criminal history points for defendant's prior Colorado sentence. Defendant argued that his prior sentence could not have been a prior sentence of imprisonment of at least 60 days under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(b). The court concluded that defendant's prior sentence was not suspended in full and the non-suspended portion exceeded 60 days. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

by
The Parishes filed suit against BP and others involved in the "Deepwater Horizon" oil spill, seeking to recover penalties under The Louisiana Wildlife Protection Statute, La. R.S. 56:40:1. On appeal, the Parishes challenged the denial of its motion to remand to state court and dismissal of its claims as preempted by federal law. The court concluded that the state law claims were removable pursuant to the broad jurisdictional grant of section 1349 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1349. The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the Parishes' claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, as interpreted in International Paper Co v. Ouellette, and that Congress did not reject that interpretation explicitly or by negative implication in the CWA or when it passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2718(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

by
Three children who are natives of Mexico appealed the district court's finding under the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, that they were being wrongfully retained in the United States and should be returned to their mother. While the appeal was pending, USCIS granted the children asylum. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the children, who are not parties, have standing to appeal where their well-being was at stake. On the merits, the court concluded that no jurisdictional defect arose from the fact that the director of child and family services was not the actual physical custodian of the children; the absence of ORR as a party was not a meaningful defect; and the Hague Convention was a proper mechanism for the recovery of the children. Accordingly, the district court did not lack jurisdiction to enter the order that the children be returned to their mother. Because the children's fundamental interests are at stake in the district court proceedings and no respondent is making an effort to represent those interests, the court remanded to the district court to appoint the children a guardian ad litem. The district court did not clearly err by failing to account for the mostly retrospective harm allegedly suffered by the children, or the conclusions of the psychologist, which were based on the children's belief that the same conditions would be present upon their return. Finally, the court concluded that an asylum grant did not remove from the district court authority to make controlling findings on the potential harm to the child. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Sanchez v. R.G.L." on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed her sentence after being convicted of two theft offenses involving Government property with a value less than $1,000, contending that 18 U.S.C. 641 did not permit her to be convicted of more than a single felony count. Defendant obtained postal stamps at United States Postal Offices in various locations, tendering checks with insufficient funds as payment in these transactions. The court concluded that defendant's interpretation of the statute reflected the plain language of section 641. Even if the court were unconvinced that defendant's view was the correct one, the court would be bound under the rule of lenity to adopt the position favoring defendant. Accordingly, the court held that defendant was properly subject to only a single felony count under section 641 and must be resentenced accordingly. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lagrone" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff appealed a judgment giving collateral-estoppel effect, in his Federal Railway Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, suit, to a finding of fact made by a Public Law Board in the course of plaintiff's pursuit of his rights under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with BNSF. The court concluded that, because it was the railroad that conducted the investigation and hearing and terminated plaintiff, and because the Board only reviewed a close record, the procedures were not adequate for collateral estoppel to apply. The court rejected BNSF's election-of-remedies argument where plaintiff sought protection under the CBA for his contractual claims and the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 153, was not itself the source of law under which plaintiff sought protection. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Grimes v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

by
Petitioner sought cancellation of removal but the IJ found that he was not statutorily eligible for the discretionary relief because of the "stop-time rule" in 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1). The court concluded that the plain reading of the provision supported the IJ's application of the stop-time rule where petitioner's conviction of aggravated assault of a family member triggered the rule and denied him eligibility for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court denied his petition for review. View "Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

by
Relators filed suit against their former employers, alleging that defendants defrauded the Government by filing fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims. At issue was whether the district court properly held that, because there was no qui tam complaint in existence at the time the Government pursued criminal charges against defendants, the criminal proceeding did not constitute an "alternate remedy" under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5). The court held that because there was no qui tam action pending at the commencement of the restitution proceeding, the restitution proceeding did not constitute an alternate remedy under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of the Government and remanded for further proceedings. View "Babalola, et al. v. Sharma, et al." on Justia Law