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

The defendant, Justin Gregory Jubert, was charged with cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) and transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. The charges arose from a prolonged online campaign where Jubert used multiple Facebook accounts to threaten, harass, and intimidate the victim, M.R., his wife, and their two minor daughters. The harassment included posting threats, insults, and personal information, escalating to threats of violence and tracking the daughters' activities. The family took significant security measures in response, including installing cameras and contacting law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Jubert's motion to dismiss the charges, rejecting his facial challenge to the statute but deferring the as-applied challenge. Jubert then pleaded guilty to the cyberstalking charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court sentenced him to 27 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Jubert appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and addressed two main questions: whether the statute is facially overbroad and whether Jubert's conduct qualifies as a true threat. The court concluded that the statute is not overbroad and that Jubert's conduct constituted true threats, which are not protected by the First Amendment. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) is constitutional as applied to Jubert and does not violate his right to freedom of speech. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Jubert" on Justia Law

In 2018, Marcus Delars Branson was convicted of bank robbery in Texas and sentenced to thirty-seven months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. A condition of his release was that he not possess a firearm. In March 2023, a probation officer found two firearms in Branson's apartment, leading to his indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Branson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The district court denied his motion, and Branson pled guilty, receiving a forty-one-month prison sentence, consecutive to a twenty-four-month revocation sentence, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Branson's motion to dismiss the indictment. Branson then pled guilty and was sentenced to a total of sixty-five months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Branson appealed, presenting both preserved and unpreserved constitutional challenges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Branson's appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Branson's facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges were foreclosed by precedent, specifically United States v. Diaz and United States v. Schnur. The court also rejected Branson's Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment challenges, citing previous rulings that had addressed similar arguments. Finally, the court found that Branson's void-for-vagueness challenge lacked merit, as § 922(g)(1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, and Branson had fair notice that his actions were unlawful. The court reviewed the unpreserved challenges for plain error and found none. Thus, the district court's sentence was affirmed. View "USA v. Branson" on Justia Law

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 10, 2020, Corpus Christi Police Officers Perez and Alfaro stopped Isaac Riojas after observing him roll through a stop sign. Riojas, known to the officers from prior investigations, opened his car door and threw his keys outside. Officer Perez noticed a strong odor of marijuana and ashes on Riojas’s lap. Riojas was detained, and a search of his vehicle revealed multiple bags of synthetic cannabinoid, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Riojas was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Riojas’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the search fell within the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. Riojas then entered an unconditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 121 months of imprisonment. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that an unconditional guilty plea typically waives prior non-jurisdictional challenges, including suppression rulings. However, the government did not invoke this waiver on appeal, leading the court to consider whether it must raise the waiver sua sponte. The court decided not to raise the waiver on its own motion and proceeded to review the merits of the search.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the search was lawful under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the officers had probable cause to search Riojas’s vehicle based on the smell of marijuana, the visible ashes, and the partially smoked marijuana joint. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and upheld Riojas’s conviction and sentence. View "USA v. Riojas" on Justia Law

Anna Palova, a flight attendant for United Airlines since 1992, was terminated in February 2020 for allegedly engaging in "parking," a prohibited scheduling tactic. United Airlines claimed that Palova manipulated flight assignments, violating the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Palova, however, argued that her termination was due to age discrimination, as she and two other older flight attendants were fired while younger attendants who committed similar infractions were not.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines. The court concluded that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) precluded Palova's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim and preempted her Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) claim. The court reasoned that resolving Palova's claims would require interpreting the CBA, which falls outside the court's jurisdiction under the RLA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the RLA does not preclude or preempt Palova's age discrimination claims. The court found that Palova's claims of age discrimination were independent of the CBA and did not require its interpretation. The court noted that while the CBA might be referenced, it was not dispositive of the discrimination claims. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Palova v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

Joseph Lee Betancourt was convicted for firearms possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. The case arose when Harris County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a 911 call reporting that Betancourt had brandished a firearm during an argument. Upon searching his home, deputies found firearms, ammunition, and body armor. Betancourt had prior felony convictions for aggravated assault, which served as the predicate for his prosecution under § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Betancourt’s motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment. Betancourt entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. Betancourt then appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires determining if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct and if the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also referenced United States v. Rahimi, which upheld prohibitions on firearm possession by individuals posing a credible threat to safety.The Fifth Circuit held that Betancourt’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge failed. The court found that Betancourt’s aggravated assault convictions, which involved reckless driving and causing serious injuries, demonstrated that he posed a threat to public safety. The court concluded that disarming Betancourt was consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

Rodrigo Linares-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1996. In 2016, he was placed in removal proceedings while in state custody for driving without a license with prior convictions. Linares-Rivas conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), claiming his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two U.S. citizen sons. His initial counsel submitted untimely evidence, which the immigration judge considered. At a hearing in April 2018, Linares-Rivas appeared with new counsel who requested a continuance to file additional evidence, blaming previous counsel for missed deadlines. The immigration judge denied the continuance but admitted the previously submitted evidence.The immigration judge denied Linares-Rivas’s application for cancellation of removal, citing negative factors such as his two DWI convictions, frequent driving without a license, and lack of evidence of tax payments. Linares-Rivas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), raising issues including ineffective assistance of counsel and the denied continuance. The BIA remanded the case to the immigration judge to provide a complete decision. In September 2019, the immigration judge again denied the application, finding Linares-Rivas statutorily ineligible and denying relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA affirmed the decision in March 2024.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. The court also denied the petition in part regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it was not initially raised before the BIA. The court concluded that Linares-Rivas’s arguments did not raise a colorable legal question about the agency’s discretionary denial. View "Linares-Rivas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Raymond Vuoncino, a corporate-finance professional, worked for U.S. Pipe Fabrication, LLC (Fabrication). After Fabrication implemented new accounting practices for inter-company sales, Vuoncino objected to these practices as potentially fraudulent. Subsequently, he was fired by an executive of Fabrication’s parent company, Forterra, Inc. Vuoncino sued Fabrication, Forterra, and two Forterra executives, alleging violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s anti-retaliation provision.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Vuoncino’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, denied his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and denied reconsideration of those orders. Vuoncino appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Vuoncino’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, finding the proposed amendments were time-barred and did not relate back to the original complaint. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of reconsideration, noting that Vuoncino’s motion rehashed previously rejected arguments and did not present newly discovered evidence.However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim against Fabrication, concluding that Vuoncino’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged that Fabrication employed him. The court found that Vuoncino’s allegations, taken as true, were sufficient to raise a plausible inference that he was a Fabrication employee. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claims against Forterra, Bradley, and Kerfin, as Vuoncino failed to sufficiently plead that these defendants were his employer’s alter ego or that he could sue Forterra directly without establishing an employment relationship.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vuoncino v. Forterra" on Justia Law

Karen Orr tripped on a soft drink display at a Dollar General store in Ackerman, Mississippi, and subsequently fell. After Orr's death, Sandie Keister, on behalf of Orr's estate, sued Dolgencorp for premises-liability negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. During discovery, Dolgencorp failed to produce security camera footage, data from the store’s daily planner, and safety-check data. The district court found that Dolgencorp lost or could not access this evidence. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Keister also filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for Dolgencorp on all claims and denied Keister’s motions for summary judgment and sanctions. Keister appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Dolgencorp on her premises liability claim and in denying her motion for sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the decision. The court held that Keister failed to provide evidence that Dolgencorp breached its duty to warn Orr of the dangerous condition. Keister's arguments, including the mode-of-operation theory and the duration of the dangerous condition, were insufficient to establish Dolgencorp's liability. The court also affirmed the denial of Keister’s motion for sanctions, finding no evidence that Dolgencorp intended to deprive her of the missing evidence and noting that the request for a jury instruction became moot after summary judgment was granted.The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Keister v. Dolgencorp" on Justia Law

A mother, Samantha Estefania Francisco Castro, removed her daughter, A.F., from Venezuela, where the father, Jose Leonardo Brito Guevara, had lawful custody. Castro and A.F. illegally immigrated to the United States. Brito petitioned for A.F.'s return under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Brito's petition, finding that although Brito had established a prima facie case of wrongful removal, A.F. was now well-settled in Texas. Brito appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its application of the well-settled exception. The appellate court found that A.F.'s young age, the instability of her residence and her mother's employment, and the uncertain immigration status of both A.F. and her mother weighed against a finding that A.F. was well-settled in the United States. The court emphasized that the Hague Convention's primary objective is to restore the pre-abduction status quo and deter parents from seeking more favorable courts across borders. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to order A.F.'s return to Venezuela. View "Guevara v. Castro" on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2019 due to a downturn in the oil and gas industry caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bankruptcy court approved a reorganization plan in April 2020, which aimed to compensate creditors with equity in a new entity. Disputes arose between secured and unsecured creditors over the allocation of this equity. The bankruptcy court sided with the unsecured creditors, awarding them a dominant stake in the new entity after hypothetically valuing various avoidance actions preserved by the reconstituted debtor.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The bankruptcy court held that the secured creditors' pre-petition liens on valuable oil and gas interests were avoidable preferential transfers. The court then proceeded to value the avoidance actions and allocated the equity shares in the new entity, Mesquite Energy, Inc., based on this valuation. The secured creditors appealed the decision, arguing that the bankruptcy court's valuation and allocation contravened the Bankruptcy Code.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the bankruptcy court's equity allocation violated the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. §§ 550(a) and (d), because it incorrectly approved more than a "single satisfaction" as a remedy for the avoided secured creditors' liens. The Fifth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that the Plan did not permit a hypothetical valuation process that disregarded the proper application of Sections 550(a) and (d) and that the secured creditors were entitled to a single satisfaction for their liens. View "Sr Secured Noteholders v. DE Trust Co" on Justia Law