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

Defendant was convicted of ten counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956, which prohibited individuals from laundering the "proceeds" of certain activities. After the Supreme Court held that "proceeds" meant "profits" rather than "gross receipts" in United States v. Santos, defendant moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and appealed from the district court's denial of that motion. The court concluded that defendant did not argue on appeal that he was entitled to relief under the two-step analysis described in Garland v. Roy. Therefore, the court need not and did not resolve those issues. Because Garland prevented the court from uniformly defining "proceeds" as "profits" across the money-laundering statute, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ghali" on Justia Law

This dispute concerned the MSA's indemnification provision and the insurance agreements supporting M-I's indemnification obligations. At issue was whether, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1333(a), Louisiana law governed the indemnity provisions. The court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, finding that the OCSLA applied to the parties' contractual dispute, and thus, pursuant to the OCSLA choice of law provision, Louisiana law applied, under which the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA), La. Rev. Stat. 9:2780(B), invalidated the indemnity provisions. View "Ace American Ins. Co. v. M-I, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Freeport and Brand Energy were named defendants in a personal injury suit in Texas state court. Freeport sought defense and indemnity from ACE, its insured, in the state court proceedings under Brand Energy's insurance policy with ACE. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that it had no duty to defend Freeport in the state court proceedings because Freeport was not covered as an additional insurer under Brand Energy's insurance policy with respect to the underlying state court claims. The court remanded for a determination of whether ACE had a duty to indemnify Freeport for the cost of its settlement in the state court proceedings. View "ACE American Ins. Co. v. Freeport Welding & Fabricating" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the BIA's order finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal and deeming him ineligible to be admitted on the basis that the Texas assault statute for which he was convicted qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMI). The court held that the BIA's decision was consistent with precedent and its determination was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

This case concerned the remedy under Louisiana law for the purchaser of a newly constructed home with a construction defect that has not resulted in actual physical damage to the home. The court held that the Louisiana New Home Warranty Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:3141, 9:3150, provided the exclusive remedy against a builder for a purchaser of a new home. The court also held that a claim brought under the Act must allege that the defect in question resulted in actual physical damage to the home. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the case. View "Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's striking of his appeal waiver and the sentence imposed. The court held that the district court did not have the authority to strike defendant's appeal waiver, and he had thus waived his right to appeal. Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in an enforceable plea agreement, the court upheld the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Serrano-Lara" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the court found no basis in Panetti v. Quarterman or elsewhere for the district court's holding that a competency hearing at which petitioner testified and both petitioner and respondent introduced expert testimony, including medical records stipulated as accurate, violated the due process clause. The court also found no basis for concluding that the state court's decision that petitioner was competent to be executed was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Finally, the court found that petitioner had failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of upholding the state court's competency finding. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's stay of execution and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "Green v. Thaler" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the public corruption trial centering around former Dallas City Councilman Don Hill. Appellant appealed the district court's denial of his request for an award of restitution as a purported victim of defendant's criminal bribery offense. As this court recently concluded that nonparties could not challenge adverse restitution rulings via direct appeal, and instead must rely on the procedures for such challenges expressly set forth in the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(6), the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Slovacek" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed his conviction and sentence, remanding to the state trial court with instructions to hold a new trial. That trial has yet to occur. In 2006, petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus from Texas courts and then applied for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court found fault with the continuing incarceration but dismissed petitioner's claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state remedies. The court held that the district court did not err and affirmed the judgment. View "Hartfield v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations licensed to conduct bingo games, filed suit challenging restrictions on the Texas Bingo Enabling Act (Bingo Act), Tex. Occ. Code 2001.001 et seq. Plaintiffs challenged provisions in the Bingo Act that prohibited charities from using the money generated by conducting bingo games for lobbying activities or to support or oppose ballot measures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions. The court reversed and held that the Bingo Act's restrictions on the use of bingo proceeds for political advocacy were permissible conditions on a government subsidy and did not operate to penalize speech. View "Dept of Texas, Veterans of Foreign Wars, et al v. Texas Lottery Commission, et al" on Justia Law