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

Defendants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to avoid federal income tax and of filing false tax returns. The district court erred in not clarifying that plaintiffs' good-faith belief need not be objectively reasonable. Nevertheless, the erroneous jury instruction in this case was harmless because the evidence showing that plaintiffs intentionally underreported their income was so overwhelming that the error could not have contributed to the jury's decision to convict. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in calculating the total tax loss resulting from the offenses and declining to accept plaintiffs' tax-loss estimate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Montgomery, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, UTHSC, on her sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to include a specific sex discrimination claim on her EEOC intake sheet and consequently did not exhaust her administrative remedies on that claim; plaintiff's subsequent claim regarding sex discrimination not based upon harassment fell outside the scope of the EEOC investigation and could not reasonably be expected to grow out of her initial charge of sexual harassment; the incidents described by plaintiff were insufficient to demonstrate pervasive hostility toward her as a matter of law, and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment for UTHSC on plaintiff's sexual harassment claim; and a jury could reasonably conclude that UTHSC's reasons for not renewing plaintiff's contract was pretextual. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hague v. UT Health and Science Center" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed his habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. After petitioner was transferred to FCI Sandstone in Minnesota, the Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because petitioner's immediate custodian was outside the district. Petitioner appealed, the Third Circuit reversed, remanding the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Petitioner was then transferred to a federal prison in Illinois and then eventually to Mississippi. The U.S. Magistrate Judge in Minnesota transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court in Mississippi concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania district court attached upon petitioner's filing of his petition while he was confined there and jurisdiction was not destroyed by petitioner's subsequent transfer to another prison. The court vacated the dismissal order and transferred the case back to Pennsylvania. The court concluded that petitioner stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the Pennsylvania district court was the proper forum. The court concluded that jurisdiction attached on that initial filing for habeas corpus relief and it was not destroyed by the transfer of petitioner and accompanying custodial charge. View "Griffin, Jr. v. Ebbert" on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood filed suit against the State for declaratory judgment and to enjoin provisions of 2013 Texas House Bill No. 2 (H.B. 2). H.B. 2 pertains to the regulation of surgical abortions and abortion-inducing drugs. Two provisions of H.B.2 were at issue: first, the requirement that a physician performing or inducing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles from the location where the abortion is provided; and second, the limitations on the use of abortion-inducing drugs to a protocol authorized by the FDA. The district court held that parts of both provisions were unconstitutional and granted, in substantial part, the requested injunctive relief. A motions panel of this court granted a stay pending appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the stay. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the physician-plaintiffs had standing on behalf of their patients, as well as standing to assert their own rights. The court concluded that the district court applied the wrong legal standards under rational basis review and erred in finding that the admitting-privileges requirement amounts to an undue burden for a large fraction of women that it affects. The court also concluded that the district court erred in holding that H.B. 2's rejection of the off-label protocol from fifty to sixty-three days LMP (last menstrual period) facially imposes an undue burden on the abortion rights of certain women. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment for the State, except that the admitting privileges requirement may not be enforced against abortion providers who timely applied for admitting privileges under the statute but are awaiting a response from the hospital. View "Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Abbott, et al." on Justia Law

The State filed a class action suit against several insurers to recover on the homeowner insurance policies purchased by individual Louisiana citizens but assigned by the respective policy holders to the State in return for State financial assistance in repairing and rebuilding their homes in the wake of the hurricanes. Defendants removed to federal court. The State eventually dropped its class allegations and severed this individual action from the original class action case. At issue was whether there was federal jurisdiction over these individual cases, once part of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), class action. The court held that the general rule regarding federal jurisdiction over a removed case controlled; jurisdictional facts were determined at the time of removal, not by subsequent events; because at the time of removal CAFA supplied federal subject matter jurisdiction over these cases, the court held that CAFA continued to provide jurisdiction over these individual cases notwithstanding their severance from the class. View "State of Louisiana v. American National Property and Casualty Co., et al." on Justia Law

SHA appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The district court concluded that SHA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating plaintiff's rental assistance benefits under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) for failure to attend an annual recertification meeting. The court held that plaintiff followed SHA's requirements - including contacting SHA within three days of her receipt of SHA's notice and attempting to reschedule due to her mother's recent death - and that SHA's contrary decision was arbitrary and capricious. Because this conclusion disposed of the case, the court did not address the parties' remaining contentions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cooley v. Housing Auth. of the City of Slidell" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 application challenging his convictions for various sexual assault offenses. The district court denied petitioner's motions for a COA. Subsequently, in light of the new rule announced in Trevino v. Thaler, the Supreme Court granted petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the district court's prior order, and remanded to the district court to reconsider his petition for COA. The district court found that, under Trevino, it may be possible for the district court to hear at least some of petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which would otherwise be procedurally defaulted, to the extent petitioner either lacked counsel or had ineffective counsel in his initial collateral review proceeding in state court. However, the court was unable to determine from the record which, if any, of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be preserved for review under Trevino. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for reconsideration of petitioner's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in accordance with Trevino and Martinez v. Ryan. View "Neathery v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendants Garner and Shoemaker were charged with various federal crimes arising from a bribe and kickback scheme involving a community hospital. In No. 12-60754, the Government appealed the district court's judgments of acquittal and grants of new trials for defendants. In No. 12-60791, Defendant Shoemaker appealed the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial on the remaining counts, of which he alone was convicted. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under Count One, conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. 666 by committing federal program bribery; Count Two, federal program bribery in violation of section 666; Count Four, the conspiracy to pay kickbacks to Shoemaker; and Count Five, healthcare fraud in violation of 32 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2)(B). Because the district court has no power to grant a new trial under Rule 33 on a basis not raised by the defendant, the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on these grounds. Because the jury instructions adequately explained all requisite elements of liability under section 1320a-7b(b)(2)(B), and because the evidence did not preponderate heavily against the verdict, the interest of justice did not require a new trial. Because the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Shoemaker's remaining convictions, and otherwise found no errors warranting reversal or a new trial, the court affirmed Shoemaker's convictions on Counts Three and Counts Six through Twelve. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grants of defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial; affirmed Shoemaker's other convictions; and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict and for sentencing. View "United States v. Shoemaker, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a Secret Service agent regarding the meaning of code words used by the conspirators on wiretapped recordings; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a DEA Group Supervisor concerning the interpretation of coded drug slang; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants; the district court did not err in assigning Defendant Edwards an aggravating-role sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b) and for firearm possession under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1); the district court did not err in applying a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 to Defendant Gage's sentence; in Defendant Atkins' case, any error committed by the sentencing judge in looking to the higher crack cocaine calculation of 280 grams was harmless; the sentencing judge did not violate United States v. Booker in sentencing Defendant Perkins; and Akins' argument that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey by increasing his maximum sentence based on his two prior felony drug convictions was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Akins, et al." on Justia Law

Vista, plaintiff's employer, appealed the district court's denial of Vista's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's on-the-job injury claim. The court held that even if the Benefit Plan and the Arbitration Agreement were properly considered as part of a single contract, the termination provision found in the Benefit Plan did not apply to the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Arbitration Agreement was not illusory under Texas law because Vista's power to terminate the Arbitration Agreement was properly constrained. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to enter an order compelling arbitration. View "Lizalde v. Vista Quality Markets" on Justia Law