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

Kingsley Dayo petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on the government's violation of confidentiality in revealing to the Nigerian consulate that he had applied for asylum. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding (1) Dayo was allowed a separate claim for relief based on the breach of confidentiality; and (2) because the BIA considered this separate claim, and because its denial of relief on that ground was supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review was denied. View "Dayo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellant Jibreel Rashad, the owner of a construction company, was convicted and sentenced for violating the Hobbs Act in a crude pay-to-play scheme practiced by Dallas, Texas officials against low-income housing developers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction under the Hobbs Act for conspiracy to obstruct, delay or affect commerce by extortion; (2) the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not affect Appellant's substantial rights and were not prejudicial; and (3) the district court did not plainly err in imposing Appellant's sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonable. View "United States v. Rashad" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of attempting to persuade, induce, or entice a child to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) and one count of receipt of child pornography. The indictment stemmed from an incident in which Defendant communicated with an adult whom he believed to be the father of an eleven-year-old child about engaging in sexual activity with the child. Defendant moved to dismiss the enticement count on the basis that he never communicated directly with a child or anyone he believed to be a child. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to the enticement count. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to dismiss the enticement charge after noting that Defendant directed some of his intended inducements to the child and took actions directed toward obtaining the child's assent through an intermediary. The Court then held that an individual can violate the statute solely through communications with an adult whom he knows to be an adult, and the contact with the child need not be direct under the statute. View "United States v. Olvera" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was 18 U.S.C. 3509(m), which contains specific instructions that mandate government retention of child pornography evidence during criminal proceedings. Section 3509(m)'s retention mandate that child pornography remain in the government's possession applies as long as the material is made "reasonably available" to the defendant for purposes of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. The statute further states that the material is "reasonably available" as long as the government provides "ample opportunity" for the defendant to inspect, view, and examine the material. The district court in this case found that the government failed to provide Defendant with ample opportunity to examine the child pornography evidence at a government facility. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the government did not provide Defendant with "ample opportunity" to inspect, view, or examine the material at the government facility. View "United States v. Jarman" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal sex offender, was convicted under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of failing to update his change of address when he moved intrastate. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. The panel majority rejected Defendant's argument that Congress did not have the power to criminalize Defendant's failure to register because it could not constitutionally reassert jurisdiction over his intrastate activities after his unconditional release from federal custody. The panel opinion was vacated by the Court's decision to rehear the case en banc. The Court then reversed and rendered a judgment of dismissal, holding that, under the specific and limited facts of this case, Defendant's commission of a federal crime was an insufficient basis for Congress to assert unending criminal authority over him. View "United States v. Kebodeaux" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was not informed that his conviction made him eligible for deportation. Later, an immigration judge conducted a hearing and ordered Petitioner's removal. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner claimed derivative citizenship under 321 of the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioner's parents never legally separated, and because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that his mother was deceased, Petitioner failed to satisfy INA 321; and (2) INA 321 did not violate Petitioner's equal protection rights. View "Ayton v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant sold investors secured debt obligations (SDOs) based on the loans his company made to used-car purchasers. Defendant misrepresented his credentials and insurance coverage on the investments and marketed his investment offerings as though they were as safe as FDIC-backed certificates of deposit. After a jury trial in which Defendant represented himself, Defendant was convicted of securities fraud. The district court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison, three years' supervised release, and almost $7.3 million in restitution. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not plainly err in admitting a civil order at trial; (2) the jury did not convict Defendant on an invalid alternative theory; (3) the district court properly managed Defendant's pro se representation; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (5) the district court did not err in imposing the sentence. View "United States v. Bruteyn" on Justia Law

Michael Daniel drove a truck for Cryogenic Transportation to a plant owned by Airgas Carbonics. Upon exiting the Airgas plant, Daniel fatally collided with a passing train operated by Illinois Central Railroad Company. Illinois Central filed suit against Cryogenic Transportation and Michael Daniel's widow, Clydine Daniel, as representative of Michael's estate, seeking recovery for damage to its property resulting from the collision. Clydine filed a counterclaim sounding in negligence and added Airgas as a counterclaim defendant, seeking recovery for damages resulting from Michael's death. The district court dismissed the counterclaim against Airgas for failure to state a claim, concluding that Airgas owed no duty to Michael at the time of the collision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that after Michael exited Airgas's plant, Airgas did not owe him a duty under Mississippi tort law. View "Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Cryogenic Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

Insurer issued Insured a commercial general liability policy. After a third party sued Insured, Insured rejected the representation offered by Insurer under the policy on the ground that Insurer's reservation-of-rights letter had created a conflict of interest. Insured hired its own independent counsel, and when Insurer refused to reimburse Insured for the cost of its independent counsel, Insured filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Insurer had a contractual duty to defend and indemnify Insured in the third party lawsuit. The magistrate judge rejected Insured's claim, ruling that Insurer was not required to reimburse Insured for the cost of independent counsel. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the facts to be adjudicated in the third party lawsuit were not the same facts upon which coverage depended, the potential conflict in this case did not disqualify the attorney offered by Insurer to represent Insured; and (2) therefore, Insured was not entitled to reimbursement from Insurer for the cost of hiring independent counsel. View "Downhole Navigator, LLC v. Nautilus Ins. Co." on Justia Law