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

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements. DHS subsequently attempted to introduce defendant's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in a removal proceeding; the immigration court refused to admit the PSR without the district court's approval, which DHS then sought. Defendant in turn requested criminal contempt sanctions against the DHS attorneys who pursued disclosure of his PSR. The district court granted DHS's motion after redacting much of defendant's information and denied the sanctions request. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the United States v. Huckaby factors, for determining a "compelling, particularized need for disclosure," nor did it err in evaluating and balancing those factors. Further, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to initiate contempt proceedings, as DHS's attorneys did not contumaciously violate a clear order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iqbal" on Justia Law

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on its claim of fraud and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against defendants. Defendants' misrepresentations induced plaintiff to settle the asbestos exposure claims of two former employees whom defendants represented in a state-court lawsuit. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively that the case called for Burford abstention. Defendants also contended that the evidence established their statute-of-limitations and waiver defenses as a matter of law. The court concluded, however, that defendants misconceived the legal authorities relevant to their jurisdiction, abstention, and waiver arguments. Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Guy, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty under a plea agreement to possession of child pornography and his plea agreement was conditioned on retaining the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal. Defendant claimed that the search warrant that led officers to the pornography violated the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the search warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity and probable cause requirements under the circumstances. View "United States v. Triplett, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written agreement, to possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. At issue was whether the denial of defendant's motion under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(2) to modify the terms of supervised release imposed as part of the original sentence fell within the scope of defendant's waiver, as part of his plea agreement, of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence and to contest his sentence in any post-conviction proceeding. The court held that it did where defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion fell within the scope of a broadly-worded appeal and therefore, dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Scallon" on Justia Law

Appellee commenced adversary proceedings against debtors, alleging that the debts owed to him were non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B). At issue was the proper construction of the phrase "respecting the debtor's...financial condition" as it appeared in sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B). Because the court agreed with the bankruptcy court's interpretation and found no clear error in that court's determination that the debtors obtained an advance of money through actual fraud, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bandi, et al. v. Becnel" on Justia Law

Greenwood filed a petition for damages in Louisiana state court, alleging that Chesapeake had damaged Greenwood's property where a mineral lease abutted land that Greenwood was developing into a subdivision. Sitting in diversity and applying Louisiana law, the district court granted summary judgment to Chesapeake, finding that the lease did not give Greenwood the right to recover consequential damages. The court found that the relevant provision of the lease was ambiguous and therefore vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Greenwood 950, L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas for the murders of four victims. Petitioner applied for a certificate of appealability (COA) so that he could appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas relief on his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase of his trial. The court concluded that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court's conclusion that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law on the record before it, and that petitioner's claims were not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's request for a COA. View "Brown, Jr. v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Appellant, a journalist, appealed from the district court's entry of an order barring communication with the media and its denial of his motion to intervene in a case involving charges of terrorism. The government indicted defendant for attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and the day that the indictment was filed, the district court entered an order barring the parties, their representatives, and their attorneys of record from communicating with the news media about the case. On appeal, appellant argued that the district court wrongly found that he had no right to intervene and that the district court's gag order violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. The court concluded that FRCP 4(a) controlled this appeal and that notice was timely; that the gag order affected appellant's right to gather news and therefore, he had standing to challenge it; but, on the merits, appellant had not shown that the gag order violated the First Amendment where the gag order was not overly broad on its face and the gag order did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the denial of his motion to intervene did not limit his right to earn a living through news gathering in violation of his due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Aldawsari" on Justia Law

Mid-Continent appealed the district court's final judgment that it had a duty to indemnify Davis Construction in the underlying wrongful death action brought by the family of decedent Jorge Serrato. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Serrato was an independent contractor and not an employee of Davis Construction. View "Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Davis, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants were committed of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349. Defendant Grant also was convicted of two counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347 and 2. Defendants each appealed their convictions. The court concluded that: (1) the district court did not plainly err by admitting a co-conspirator's statements; (2) the government's second cross-examination of Grant was not reversible prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to elaborate with a missing witness instruction; and (4) there was proof enough to support defendants' convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Grant, et al." on Justia Law