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

This case required the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether vicarious liability principles under the Jones Act allowed a seaman's wife to recover from her husband's employer for the events that led to his death. Keith Beech died after his co-worker, Michael Cosenza, accidentally shot him aboard a Hercules Drilling Company-owned vessel. The district court determined that Cosenza was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and therefore, Hercules was liable for Mr. Beech's wrongful death. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Cosenza was not acting in the course of his employment when he accidentally shot Beech, and therefore, the district court's judgment in favor of Mrs. Beech must be reversed. View "Beech v. Hercules Drilling Co., LLC" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute it. On appeal, Defendant contended that reversible error occurred when portions of two 911 calls were admitted into evidence because the recordings contained testimonial hearsay that violated his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the admission of the 911 recordings did not violate Defendant's right to confrontation because the 911 caller's statements did not constitute testimonial hearsay; (2) the 911 caller's statements were admissible as present sentence impression under Fed. R. Evid. 803(1). View "United States v. Polidore" on Justia Law

Sixteen years tardy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disapproved a revision to Texas's plan for implementing the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The untimely disapproval unraveled approximately 140 permits issued by Texas under the revision's terms and required regulated entities to qualify for pre-revision permits or risk federal sanctions. Petitioner - the State of Texas, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and representatives of nationwide manufacturing, chemical and petroleum industries - petitioned for review of the EPA's action under the APA. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA's disapproval of Texas's plan, holding that the EPA's disapproval failed APA review, as the EPA based its disapproval on demands for language and program features of the EPA's choosing without basis in the CAA or its implementing regulations. View "State v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered in the United States in 1999. She had authorization to remain for a temporary period, not to exceed six months, but she remained beyond that period without authorization. In 2007 Petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of fraudulent identifying information. The Department of Homeland Security then charged Petitioner with removability as an alien who remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents, which an immigration judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's ineligibility for cancellation of removal depended solely on whether her prior state-court conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude; and (2) Petitioner's offense was one of moral turpitude, and therefore, Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Nino v. Holder" on Justia Law

This was an interlocutory appeal from the district court's grant of class certification in a case involving allegations that the defendant title insurance company charged premiums for title policies that exceeded the refinance rates set by the Texas Department of Insurance in Tex. Ins. Code Rate Rule R-8. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of class certification and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) were satisfied, as none of the four questions identified by the district court was actually common to the class and common questions would not predominate at trial. View "Ahmad v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant illegally entered the United States in 2002. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings. Defendant applied for relief from removal based on his fear of harm in his native El Salvador. Defendant also sought review of DHS's denial of his application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The immigration judge denied Defendant's applications and ordered him removed to El Salvador. The BIA affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's motion for stay of deportation and granted the government's motion for summary denial of Defendant's petition for review, holding that the Attorney General was not required to withhold Defendant's removal, and that Defendant was ineligible to receive TPS. View "Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Supreme Court's decision in Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel Winn, which curtailed the authority of district courts to award fee enhancements in federal fee-shifting cases, unequivocally overruled the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent in the bankruptcy arena. Here Debtors filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Debtors retained Appellee to assist in their restructuring process. After Debtors' bankruptcy plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court, Appellee requested approval of a $1 million fee enhancement. The bankruptcy court denied the request because Appellee failed to satisfy the strict requirements of the Supreme Court's holding in Perdue. The district court reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court erred in treating the federal fee-shifting decision in Perdue as binding authority in a bankruptcy proceeding. On remand, the bankruptcy court awarded Appellee the $1 million fee enhancement. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Perdue did not unequivocally, sub silentio overrule the Fifth Circuit's prior precedent. View "CRG Partners Group, LLC v. Neary" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police investigator, was charged with participating in the cover-up of the Danzinger Bridge shootings in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Defendant was brought to trial in early 2012. Near the conclusion of his trial, the prosecutor violated two pre-trial rulings on motions in limine that prohibited her from mentioning the case involving the death of Raymond Robair, who died while in police custody. Defendant sought and was granted a mistrial. Defendant further moved to bar retrial on the basis of double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in finding that the prosecutor did not intend to cause a mistrial with her improper actions, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to bar retrial. View "United States v. Dugue" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to embezzle funds from employee benefit plans, conspiracy to launder money, mail fraud, embezzlement from employee benefit plans, money laundering, and making a false statement to the Department of Labor. After losing on appeal, he petitioned for habeas relief and was denied. Defendant subsequently filed a new motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2241, arguing that the Supreme Court's GVR ("grant, vacate, remand") in Jackson v. United States constituted a retroactively applicable decision demonstrated he was convicted of a non-offense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the GVR did not qualify as a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision. View "Kenemore v. Roy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a dual-status air reserve technician (ART) in the 301st maintenance group (301st MG). ARTs are full-time civilian employees who are also required to serve in the Air Force Reserve in the units for which they work as civilians. Plaintiff was the chief of training management of the 301st MG in his civilian capacity and a technical sergeant and chief of training of the 301st MG in his military capacity. Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment at the 301st MG, which caused him to leave his civilian job with the unit and lose his reserve position. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Fifth Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over all allegations with the exception of one incident for Defendant's failure to exhaust his Title VII administrative remedies and over the remaining claim by virtue of the Feres doctrine. Remanded with instructions to dismiss. View "Filer v. Donley" on Justia Law