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

Dajuan Martin was arrested after being seen riding a stolen scooter in New Orleans. During the police pursuit, he discarded a Glock 26, 9mm semi-automatic handgun, which was later recovered with a magazine containing 16 rounds of ammunition. Martin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated his offense level at 12, with a criminal history category of III, suggesting a sentencing range of 15 to 21 months. However, the government objected, arguing for a higher base offense level due to the firearm's large capacity magazine.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accepted the government's argument, raising Martin's base offense level to 20, resulting in a new sentencing range of 30 to 37 months. Martin was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. The court also imposed conditions for supervised release, including participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program and submission to searches under certain conditions. However, the written judgment included additional requirements not stated during the oral pronouncement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Martin challenged the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines' commentary defining "large capacity magazine" and the discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment regarding supervised release conditions. The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's use of the commentary, finding it consistent with the Guidelines. However, it agreed with Martin that the written judgment improperly broadened the conditions of supervised release.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Martin's sentence in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement. The court also rejected Martin's constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), citing consistent precedent upholding the statute's constitutionality. View "USA v. Martin" on Justia Law

In response to challenges faced during the 2020 election, the Texas Legislature enacted S.B. 1 in 2021, which restricts paid "vote harvesting services." This law aims to protect the privacy of mail-in voters by prohibiting compensated interactions intended to influence votes. Plaintiffs, a coalition of organizations, challenged this provision on vagueness and First Amendment grounds, seeking injunctions against various Texas officials.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoined the enforcement of the vote harvesting provision of S.B. 1 on September 28, 2024, nearly three years after the law took effect and just three weeks before voting was to begin. The State of Texas then moved to stay the district court's order pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and granted the State's request for a stay. The court emphasized the Supreme Court's guidance in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which advises against altering election laws close to an election due to potential voter confusion and administrative burdens. The court found that the district court's injunction, issued after mail-in ballots had already been distributed, could lead to significant confusion and disruption.The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to S.B. 1 was not "entirely clearcut," failing to meet the criteria that might justify an exception to the Purcell principle. The court noted that the law's provisions were designed to protect voter privacy and security, similar to protections upheld by the Supreme Court for in-person voting. Consequently, the motion to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal was granted. View "La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours, Officer James Marshall observed Rodney Rucker sitting in a running car outside a hotel known for criminal activity. Marshall approached Rucker, who refused to identify himself or exit the vehicle. After additional officers arrived, they broke Rucker’s window, forcibly removed him, and arrested him. Rucker subsequently sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful seizure and arrest, First Amendment retaliation, excessive force, and bystander liability.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the officers' reasonable suspicion, the alleged manufacturing of evidence, potential retaliation, and the reasonableness of the force used. The officers appealed, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the bodycam footage clearly showed that Officer Marshall had reasonable suspicion to stop and question Rucker based on the time, location, and Rucker’s behavior. The court also determined that Marshall had probable cause to arrest Rucker for failing to comply with lawful commands and for operating a vehicle without displaying a driver’s license. Additionally, the court held that the officers did not use excessive force, as Rucker’s repeated refusals to comply justified their actions. Consequently, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims, including the bystander liability claim against Officer Carter. The case was remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the officers. View "Rucker v. Marshall" on Justia Law

A federal agent stationed in Dubai, Leatrice De Bruhl-Daniels, developed a romantic relationship with a Syrian national, Nadal Diya, who was under investigation for suspected ties to terrorism. Despite warnings from her colleagues, De Bruhl-Daniels disclosed confidential information to Diya, including details about an ongoing counterterrorism investigation. She later lied to federal investigators about these disclosures.Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, De Bruhl-Daniels was convicted on twelve counts related to her conduct and sentenced to 108 months in prison. She appealed four of her convictions and her overall sentence, arguing that her false statements did not involve international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), that the statute’s sentencing enhancement was unconstitutionally vague, and that her conduct did not fall under the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed De Bruhl-Daniels' conviction on Count 24, finding sufficient evidence that her false statements involved international terrorism, thus justifying the enhanced sentence under § 1001(a). The court also held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. However, the court vacated her convictions on Counts 15, 36, and 37, which were based on obstructing an official proceeding, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fischer v. United States. The court determined that her conduct did not fall within the scope of § 1512(c)(2) as it did not involve tampering with evidence.As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated De Bruhl-Daniels' sentence and remanded the case for resentencing based on the remaining convictions. View "United States v. De Bruhl-Daniels" on Justia Law

A group of major record labels sued Grande Communications Networks, LLC, an internet service provider, for contributory copyright infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that Grande knowingly provided internet services to subscribers who used them to infringe on the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Grande received over 1.3 million infringement notices from Rightscorp, a company that identifies infringing activity on peer-to-peer networks, but Grande did not terminate or take action against repeat infringers. Instead, Grande continued to provide internet services to these subscribers, despite knowing about their infringing activities.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a three-week jury trial. The jury found Grande liable for willful contributory copyright infringement and awarded the plaintiffs $46,766,200 in statutory damages. Grande moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the issue of liability and for a new trial on damages, but the district court denied these motions. Grande then appealed, challenging the district court's rulings on its JMOL motion, the jury instructions, and the final judgment. The plaintiffs filed a conditional cross-appeal regarding a jury instruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the jury's verdict, finding that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of contributory copyright infringement. The court concluded that Grande had knowledge of its subscribers' infringing activities and materially contributed to the infringement by continuing to provide internet services without taking basic measures to prevent further damage. However, the court found that the district court erred in awarding statutory damages for each individual song rather than for each album, as the Copyright Act treats all parts of a compilation as one work for statutory damages purposes. Consequently, the court vacated the damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. The plaintiffs' conditional cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "UMG Recordings v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC" on Justia Law

Texas Truck Parts & Tire, Incorporated, a wholesaler and retailer of truck parts and tires, purchased tires from Chinese manufacturers between 2012 and 2017. These manufacturers shipped the tires to Texas Truck in Houston, Texas. Texas Truck did not file quarterly excise tax returns or pay excise taxes on the tires, believing the Chinese manufacturers were the importers responsible for the tax. Following an IRS audit, Texas Truck was assessed approximately $1.9 million in taxes. Texas Truck paid a portion of the taxes and filed for a refund, which the IRS did not act upon, leading Texas Truck to file a lawsuit seeking a refund. The Government counterclaimed for the remaining taxes owed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, determining that the Chinese manufacturers were the importers and thus liable for the excise tax. The court based its decision on the interpretation that Texas Truck did not "bring" the tires into the United States under the applicable Treasury regulation, and did not consider whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires and therefore liable for the excise tax. The court found that the district court erred by not considering whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner under the Treasury regulation. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Chinese manufacturers were nominal importers and that Texas Truck, as the beneficial owner, was responsible for the excise tax. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, rendered judgment for the Government, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the damages. View "Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States" on Justia Law

Armando P. Ibanez, a Mexican-American male, was employed by Texas A&M University–Kingsville (TAMUK) as an Assistant Professor of Communications/Radio-Television-Film. After five years, he applied for tenure and promotion to associate professor. TAMUK's requirements included the completion of at least two juried creative activities. Ibanez produced several creative works, but only one, a film titled "Men of Steel," was labeled as juried. His application for tenure and promotion was initially recommended by his departmental committee but was subsequently denied by the department chair, college committee, college dean, and provost, who cited his failure to meet the minimum requirements for juried creative activities.Ibanez appealed the decision, and an advisory committee found a prima facie case for reconsideration. The tenure appeals committee supported him, but the promotion appeals committee did not. Ultimately, the university president denied his tenure and promotion based on the negative recommendations and perceived lack of scholarship. Ibanez then sued TAMUK, alleging racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of TAMUK, dismissing Ibanez’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Ibanez failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he did not meet TAMUK’s baseline tenure requirements of two juried creative activities. Additionally, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact suggesting that Ibanez was denied tenure under circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of TAMUK. View "Ibanez v. Texas A&M" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of July 10, 2018, Trooper Kasha Domingue stopped a vehicle. After the driver and another passenger fled, Clifton Scott Dilley exited the vehicle from the driver-side rear seat. The events that followed are disputed, but it is undisputed that Domingue shot Dilley, paralyzing him from the waist down. The incident was partially captured by a nearby security camera, which lacked audio. The footage shows Domingue pulling over the SUV, the driver exiting and interacting with Domingue, and then fleeing. Dilley then exited the vehicle, and Domingue shot him in the back.The Louisiana Department of Public Safety terminated Domingue for her actions, citing her failure to use her body camera and her false statements about the incident. Domingue initially claimed she used a taser and later fabricated a story about her defensive posture during the shooting. The Louisiana State Use of Force Board found that Domingue violated multiple policies and committed criminal negligence. She was charged with aggravated second-degree battery and illegal use of weapons, to which she pleaded guilty in 2022.Dilley sued Domingue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied Domingue's motion for summary judgment, finding several disputes of material fact and denying her qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that officers cannot use deadly force against a fleeing suspect who poses no immediate threat. Given the numerous factual disputes, including Domingue's inconsistent statements and the video evidence, the court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that Domingue violated clearly established law by shooting an unarmed and nonthreatening Dilley in the back without warning. The denial of qualified immunity was affirmed. View "Dilley v. Domingue" on Justia Law

Hung Huu Quoc Nguyen challenged the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) revocation of its approval of his EB-3 visa petition. An EB-3 visa allows noncitizens performing unskilled labor with a full-time job offer to work in the U.S. and potentially adjust their status to permanent resident. Nguyen’s employer, Muy Pizza Tejas, LLC, filed an I-140 petition on his behalf, which was later approved. However, after Muy Pizza sold the restaurant employing Nguyen to Ayvaz Pizza, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the approval, citing concerns about Muy Pizza’s ability to pay Nguyen’s wages and the validity of the numerous I-140 petitions it had filed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Nguyen’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claims amounted to a challenge of an unreviewable discretionary decision by USCIS. Nguyen appealed, arguing that his I-140 petition met the portability provision requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), which should have prevented USCIS from revoking the petition. He also claimed that USCIS made procedural errors, including failing to make a successor-in-interest determination regarding Ayvaz Pizza.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the portability provision did not apply to Nguyen’s I-140 petition because it was invalid from the start due to Muy Pizza’s failure to prove its ability to pay Nguyen’s wages. Consequently, the court found that USCIS’s revocation of the petition was a discretionary decision not subject to judicial review. Additionally, the court determined that Nguyen did not establish any specific procedural errors by USCIS that would warrant judicial review. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Nguyen v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

Eileen Cure, a licensed investment advisor, entered into agreements with LPL Financial LLC (LPL) to act as a registered representative under LPL’s broker-dealer umbrella. These agreements included arbitration provisions. Cure, along with her companies, Cure & Associates, P.C. and Premier Wealth & Retirement Management, LLC, filed claims against LPL after LPL terminated its relationship with Cure, alleging she violated LPL’s policies. Cure’s companies, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreements, also alleged business disparagement and other claims against LPL.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted LPL’s motion to compel arbitration for Cure but denied it for her companies, stating that the companies were not signatories to the arbitration agreements. The court also denied LPL’s request to stay the litigation pending arbitration. LPL appealed, arguing that under California and Texas law, equitable estoppel principles should compel Cure’s companies to arbitrate their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Cure’s companies, although nonsignatories, were bound by the arbitration provisions due to equitable estoppel. The court found that the companies received direct benefits from Cure’s agreements with LPL, making them subject to the arbitration clauses. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of LPL’s motion to compel arbitration for the companies and vacated the order denying a stay of the litigation. The case was remanded for the district court to compel arbitration of the companies’ claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. View "Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial" on Justia Law