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

Plaintiffs, employers at a terminal for a trucking company, brought claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against defendant, their employer. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed each of plaintiff's claims. The court held that summary judgment was proper where the chief district judge's opinion granting summary judgment was thorough and well-reasoned, based on evidence that plaintiffs properly presented and where the district court had no duty to "comb the entire record" for evidence.

Appellees filed suit asserting that their due process rights were violated when the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") failed to make additional attempts at service after it had knowledge that the initial attempt at notice failed where the notice informed an obligor that an alien had been detained by DHS and that the obligor could post a cash bond to secure the alien's release. At issue was whether, in order to satisfy due process, the government must take additional reasonable steps to notify a bond obligor that the bond had been breached when the government had knowledge that the initial attempt at notice failed. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of appellees and held that DHS violated the bond obligor's due process rights when it failed to take additional reasonable steps to notify the obligors of the bond demand after the initial notice was returned as undeliverable before it collected the bond.

Petitioner, a Louisiana state prisoner, was convicted for the offense of attempted manslaughter for an attack on another inmate. At issue was whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in denying relief of petitioner's Miranda v. Arizona claim to suppress the statements he made to correctional officers. The court held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that the questioning at issue was more like general on-the-scene questioning rather than a custodial interrogation of the type addressed by Mathis v. United States and Maryland v. Shatzer where the questioning was conducted by members of the prison staff, using the prison's routine immediate post-fight procedure to ensure the safety of the general prison population. Therefore, the court held that the state court's determination that Miranda warnings were not required in order to admit petitioner's incriminating statements as evidence in his trial did not constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law and federal habeas relief was denied.

QT Trading, L.P. ("QT") sued defendants for rust damage to its steel pipes that allegedly occurred during their transport from Dalian, China to Houston, Texas. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to in personam defendants on QT's claims for damages under the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. 30701 note (Carriage of Goods by Sea), and for negligent bailment of its goods. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the district court properly dismissed QT's COGSA claims where QT failed to establish genuine issues of material fact where none of the defendants were "carriers" and thus could not be liable for damages under the statute. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed QT's bailment claims where QT failed to show that a certain defendant had exclusive possession of the cargo.

The City of New Orleans appealed a jury verdict for Rosedale Missionary Baptist Church finding that the city violated the church's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by demolishing the church building without notice. At issue was whether the suit should be dismissed because the church's procedural and substantive due process claims were unripe. The court dismissed the suit as unripe where the church did not allege a substantive due process claim that was independent of its procedural due process claim and where the court could not address the procedural due process claim without knowing the outcome of the takings claim, which was not before the court.

This mandamus proceeding arose out of the public-corruption prosecution centering around former Dallas City Council Member Don Hill and various other members of Dallas city government who conspired to solicit and accept things of value in exchange for providing official assistance to Brian Potashnik in his pursuit of city approval and funding for various affordable-housing development projects. One of the things of value Mr. Hill and his coconspirators solicited was the award of construction subcontracts on Mr. Potashnik's developments to Ronald Slovacek. Petitioners, competitors of Mr. Potashnik who were seeking city approval of their own affordable-housing developments, sought restitution alleging that Mr. Slovacek and his coconspirators had rendered petitioners' $1.8 million investment worthless. At issue was whether the court should grant petitioners' writ of mandamus directing the district court to recognize that petitioners were crime victims within the meaning of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3), and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The court denied the petition and held that the district court was not clearly and indisputably wrong to find that petitioners failed to prove that they had been directly and proximately harmed by Mr. Slovacek's criminal conduct. The court also denied each of petitioners' pending motions.

Appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine ("PCP"), a controlled substance. Appellants raised issues regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and contested the basis for their sentences. The court held that the district court properly denied the first defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of a certain house where, under the circumstances and in light of his failure on appeal to demonstrate that Los Angeles police were dishonest or reckless in relying on the house warrant, the good faith exception applied. The court also held that evidence from the second house at issue was inextricably intertwined with evidence tending to prove that the second defendant aided and abetted to possess with intent to distribute PCP and, in light of evidence implicating the second defendant in a scheme to aid and abet possession with intent to distribute PCP, any error in admitting evidence of the July 2008 controlled buy was harmless. The court further held that the district court's factual findings and application of U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 were not erroneous where certain material assertions were not worthy of credence in light of the weight of the physical evidence and were flatly contradicted by other witnesses and the ultimate finding of the jury. The court finally held that the sentencing enhancement for the first defendant's leadership role was based on an erroneous recitation of facts and therefore, was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Defendant pled guilty to having been found in the United States after deportation following a felony conviction and was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Almost three years after the completion of defendant's prison sentence, he was arrested for criminal trespass. At issue was whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's three-year term of supervised release after his arrest for criminal trespass. The court reasoned that resolution of the issue depended on the date on which defendant was released from imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3624(e) and held that defendant was released from imprisonment the moment his administrative detention began, i.e. the moment he was transferred from Bureau of Prisons custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to await deportation. However, because the record was not clear as to the exact date on which defendant was released from imprisonment, the court remanded for further fact-finding in order to determine the exact date on which defendant was released from imprisonment.