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

Articles Posted in January, 2015
by
Defendants plead guilty to illegal reentry after removal from the United States and subsequently appealed their sentences. The government concedes on appeal that it was error to withhold a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b). Because procedural error was committed and the error was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Torres-Perez" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to harbor an alien and subsequently challenged his sentence. The court applied a four-level enhancement for brandishing a weapon under U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(5)(B) and sentenced him to 108 months in prison. The court concluded that, in light of the record as a whole, the district court's finding that defendant displayed the weapon with intent to intimidate is plausible and there was no clear factual error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the application of the enhancement. View "United States v. Reyna-Esparza" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of crystal methamphetamine. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court could plausibly determine that defendant exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization, which, in turn, supports a finding that defendant exercised an aggravating role under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). View "United States v. Ochoa-Gomez" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Felder's filed an antitrust suit against All Star and GM, alleging that GM's "Bump the Competition" program, which lowers the consumer price for GM-manufactured parts below the prices of equivalent "generic" auto parts manufactured by others, is an unlawful predatory pricing scheme. GM lowers the price by providing rebates to dealers like All Star that sell GM-manufactured parts for the reduced prices. The court concluded that the effect of this rebate in deciding whether Felder's can meet one of the essential elements of a predatory pricing claim - that defendant is selling its products at a price below average variable cost - should be considered. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the antitrust claims based on Felder's failure to adequately define the relevant geographic market and its earlier finding that Felder's did not allege below-cost pricing. View "Felder's Collision Parts v. All Star Advertising" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing and receiving child pornography, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of pornography found on his phone. The court held that the pornography on the cell phone was obtained by defendant's consent, which was the product of an intervening independent act of free will on defendant's part that purged the taint of any alleged constitutional violation. Assuming arguendo that there is a Fourth Amendment violation, defendant's unsolicited consent coupled with the nature of the alleged misconduct lead the court to conclude that the consent was valid as a voluntary, independent act of free will. Therefore, the evidence need not be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the City misreported charges under the Texas Driver Responsibility Program to plaintiffs and that the State overcharged plaintiffs as a result. On appeal, defendant, the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, challenged the district court's partial denial of his motion to dismiss the case against him for want of jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiff Fontenot lacks standing to sue; plaintiffs Miller and Zamarron have no live controversy with the State for correction of driving records, and therefore the class action claim for similar relief is moot and nonjusticiable; the refund claims to recover surcharges are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity; and the court found it unnecessary to discuss the State's jurisdictional defense. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying state sovereign immunity and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction. View "Fontenot v. McCraw" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Petitioner, afflicted with mental illness, shot and killed a code enforcement officer in an incident involving a code citation.The court concluded that plaintiff exhausted his ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim; denied petitioner's application for a COA on his IAC claim because reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's decision under Strickland v. Washington; held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's funding application under 18 U.S.C. 3599; denied petitioner's application for a COA on his Sixth Amendment claim were reasonable jurists could not debate whether his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated when a person believed to be associated with the prosecution ate lunch with the jury; and denied petitioner's application for a COA on the Eighth Amendment issue where reasonable jurists could not debate whether his death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. View "Ward v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Plaintiff, the captain of a crew boat, filed suit against his employer and his supervisor under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 50101, and general maritime law, seeking maintenance and cure and damages. All parties cross-appealed the district court's judgment. The court concluded that the district court's finding that plaintiff merely strained his back while lifting a hatch cover is not clearly erroneous; the district court's findings regarding the weather and condition of the seas at the time and location of the incident are not clearly erroneous; the district court properly ruled against plaintiff on all of his unseaworthiness claims; the district court's finding that defendants were not negligent is fully supported by the record; the court vacated the maintenance and cure award against the supervisor where the maintenance and cure duty extends only to the seaman's employer; and the McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp. rule precludes plaintiff from obtaining maintenance and cure from his employer in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment to the extent the district court rejected plaintiff's Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims; vacated the awards against the employer and supervisor in their entirety; and rendered judgment in favor of the employer and supervisor. View "Meche v. Key Energy Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

by
Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to file false claims and subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The court concluded that, combined with the findings and reasons of the district court, defendant has not alleged sufficient facts to establish, under the totality of the United States v. Carr factors, that the district court abused its discretion in declining to hold the hearing. Accordingly, the court saw no legal errors or clearly erroneous factual findings in the district court's decision and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
After RSL denied plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits, plaintiff, a helicopter pilot with an amputated leg, filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). The district court held that the evidence supported RSL's determination that plaintiff's depression and PTSD contributed to his Total Disability. Therefore, RSL did not abuse its discretion by determining that the Exclusion Clause limited plaintiff's right to benefits. Declining to consider whether plaintiff carried his burden to show a right to benefits, the court held that RSL abused its discretion when it determined that plaintiff was not Totally Disabled where there was no evidence to show that he could earn a substantially similar salary in another position. Further, there is no rational connection between the fact that plaintiff can do sedentary work and the conclusion that he could earn a substantially similar salary in any alternative position. The court also held that RSL abused its discretion when it determined that the Exclusion Clause limited plaintiff's right to benefits, and when it affirmed RSL's determination on this basis. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, rendering judgment for plaintiff. View "George v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Posted in: ERISA