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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his age-discrimination claims under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21. After defendant investigated the allegation that plaintiff falsified his work and determined that he had, defendant terminated his employment. Because plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that his age was a motivating factor in his termination or that defendant created a hostile work environment, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc." on Justia Law

An indictment charged defendant with being a felon in possession (Count 1) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count 2). On appeal, defendant subsequently challenged his convictions and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; no material variance existed between the indictment, which charged defendant with possession of a firearm and a box of ammunition, and the proof at trial, which showed a loaded firearm and two boxes of ammunition; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to impeach its witness with a prior inconsistent statement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendant's prior inconsistent statement; the government did not engage in misconduct during closing argument. The court held, however, that defendant's sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and therefore vacated the sentences, remanding for dismissal for one of the counts of the indictment. View "United States v. Meza, III" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The court held that the district court committed plain error by structuring his sentence to be served concurrently with a discharged state sentence and consequently, defendant's substantial rights were seriously effected. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kirklin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Texas state prisoner, exhausted his state remedies and moved to file a habeas corpus petition. The district court dismissed the application without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2244, holding the petition was a second or successive petition. The court held that there was no precedent for holding a claim previously dismissed without prejudice for failure to meet the exhaustion requirement was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) if refiled after exhaustion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, holding that petitioner's petition was not a second or successive petition within the meaning of section 2244. View "Strickland v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, was eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal despite having a criminal conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. 1182, the provision granting her eligibility was repealed and IIRIRA specified that aliens with a criminal conviction like petitioner's were no longer eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal. On appeal, petitioner argued that this constituted impermissible retroactive legislation as applied to her case. Because the court concluded that petitioner could invoke the presumption against retroactive application, she was entitled to pursue section 212(c) relief. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Carranza-De Salinas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of producing child pornography and sexually exploiting a child, and one count of possessing child pornography. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to grant defendant's motion for acquittal because the government failed to introduce evidence showing that he knew or should have known that the pornographic images of the victim were produced on a camera or computer that traveled in interstate commerce; the district court did not err in denying his motion for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence; the district court did not err by instructing the jury in response to the jury's note; there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that he knowingly possessed images of child pornography; and the district court's response to the jury note at issue was not an incorrect statement of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Terrell" on Justia Law