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

Plaintiff filed suit against the TWC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), alleging that the TWC discriminated against him when it appointed another person to a management position over him. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to show that he was clearly better qualified for the position or that the TWC's bases for its decision were otherwise affected by his national origin. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court properly adopted the magistrate's Report and Recommendation granting summary judgment in favor of the TWC. View "Martinez v. Texas Workforce Comm'n" on Justia Law

Rolls Royce petitioned the court for mandamus relief following the denial of its severance-and-transfer motion. The underlying litigation concerns the liability stemming from a helicopter crash in the Gulf of Mexico. The court concluded that the district court erred in not considering Rolls Royce's forum-selection clause when conducting its severance-and-transfer analysis; there is no evidence indicating special administrative difficulties with severance, or that the interests of defendants not privy to the clause would be significantly threatened; such interests can be secured by the hand of an experienced federal trial judge with such devices as common discovery among separated cases and sequencing of any dispositive motions or trials; and, therefore, the court granted the mandamus petition, reversing and remanding with instructions to sever and transfer the claims against Rolls Royce. View "In Re: Rolls Royce Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of drug and firearm offenses. On appeal, defendant challenged his second firearm possession conviction, which resulted in the imposition of a twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury where it was not clear or obvious that United States v. Phipps applied to the facts of defendant's case. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's offense where a reasonable jury could have concluded that he possessed at least two of the five guns found in the search warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in Texas state court against Deutsche Bank, challenging the adequacy of a loan that they obtained. The state court granted plaintiffs a default judgment even though Deutsche was never properly served. Deutsche removed the case after learning of the suit and moved to set aside the state court default judgment, and then moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs moved for remand to state court and the district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that Deutsche could remove this case to federal court and the district court committed no error in denying plaintiffs' motion to remand; the district court properly vacated the default judgment in favor of Deutsche and properly granted Deutsche's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition under Rule 12(b)(6); and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thompson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned pro se for review of the BIA's finding that his prior offense of public lewdness under Texas Penal Code 21.07 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude and that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The court concluded that petitioner's offense under the statute is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because section 21.07 is divisible into discrete subsections of turpitudinous acts and non-turpitudinous acts. Therefore, the IJ and the BIA erred in declining to review petitioner's record of conviction under the modified approach to determine whether he was convicted under a subsection that describes a crime involving moral turpitude. The court granted the petition for review. View "Cisneros-Guerrerro v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted under the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 666, for pledging his support to an applicant for public office in exchange for $5,000, challenged the sufficiency of his indictment, the constitutionality of section 666, and his sentence. The court rejected defendant's argument that the indictment was constitutionally insufficient where the superseding indictment closely tracks the language of section 666; the invocation of the state's interest in education, standing alone, fails to demonstrate that section 666 is unconstitutional as applied to defendant; the evidence was sufficient for a rational fact finder to find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court's evidentiary rulings do not merit reversal where the district court's error, if there was any, was not the sort of particularly egregious error that the court has discretion to correct under the fourth prong of plain-error review; the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 2C1.1 and U.S.S.G. 2C1.1(b)(2); and the district court did not err in declining defendant's request for a U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 sentencing reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Richard, Sr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's judgment imposing liability on him for violations of the Louisiana Securities Law, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 51.701 et seq. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiffs' argument that defendant should be held liable under federal law are not properly before the court because they failed to file a cross-appeal; the district court erred in requiring the jury to find the elements of a Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Ac tof 1934, 15 U.s.C. 78j(b), claim to impose liability under Section 712 of the Louisiana Securities Law, but this error was committed at defendant's insistence and his complaints are foreclosed; defendant's claim that the evidence does not support the district court's judgment of liability under Louisiana Securities Law fails; whether or not plaintiffs are correct that the jury found the requisite elements to hold defendant liable under Rule 10b-5, this argument is not properly before the court; as a codefendant was liable to plaintiffs as a seller of securities under Section 714(A), defendant should have been held jointly and severally liable for the total damages award under Section 714(B); but, because plaintiffs have not cross-appealed, they are without jurisdiction to correct this error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Heck v. Triche" on Justia Law

The United States filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., alleging that Bollinger knowingly submitted false statements and false claims for payment to the government in relation to a government contract under which Bollinger was to modify eight vessels owned by the Coast Guard. The district court granted Bollinger's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the United States appealed. The court concluded that the United States alleged sufficient facts in its complaint to allow a factfinder to infer that Bollinger either knew that their statements were false or had a reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc." on Justia Law

Symetra appealed the district court's refusal to award attorneys' fees under the Texas and Washington State Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). Rapid cross appealed the district court's award of attorneys' fees as damages for tortious interference and the district court's permanent injunction, arguing that the injunction relies on an erroneous interpretation of the SSPAs. The court concluded that the district court erroneously held that Symetra could not recover any fees under the SSPAs where specific transfers were challenged throughout this litigation and Symetra can recover some portion of its fees related to some of those transfers. Therefore, remand is appropriate, but Symetra bears the burden of segregating fees and the district court retains discretion to deny Symetra's attorneys' fees request for failure to segregate. The court also concluded that the district court's award of fees incurred in state court with respect to one annuitant as damages for tortious interference under Texas law was proper where the natural and proximate cause of Rapid's conduct toward the annuitant was to drag Symetra into Indiana state court litigation. The district court's requirement that state court transfer orders also list first-refusal rights contravenes the SSPAs. However, the court found no error in the district court's analysis of first refusal rights under the SSPAs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and unlawful procurement of naturalization. Defendant petitioned the court to vacate his plea agreement under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the section 2255 motion and certificate of appealability. The court subsequently granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform defendant of the deportation consequences associated with his guilty plea. The court concluded that defendant submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his counsel's assistance was constitutionally deficient under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington. However, defendant had failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice under the totality of the circumstances, including defendant's evidence to support his assertion, his likelihood of success at trial, the risks defendant would have faced at trial, defendant's representations about his desire to retract his plea, his connections to the United States, and the district court's admonishments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "United States v. Kayode" on Justia Law