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

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and importation of cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the minor participant adjustment but that it did err in its application of a five-year period of ineligibility. Nevertheless, the court declined to exercise its discretion to correct the error because there was no evidence that defendant was or might be eligible for federal benefits during the five-year period of ineligibility imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Silva-De Hoyos" on Justia Law

These appeals involved former policemen who were convicted in the same trial regarding their conduct during Hurricane Katrina, which resulted in the death of one citizen. Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences. The court held that, because Defendant Warren had demonstrated that he suffered specific compelling prejudice as a consequence of the district court's refusal to sever his trial from that of the other defendants, the district court abused its discretion in denying Warren's repeated motions to sever under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a). The court also held that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant McRae's conviction for denying the citizen's descendants and survivors the right to access the courts, and therefore reversed and vacated that conviction. The court affirmed McRae's other convictions, rejecting his double jeopardy challenge, and remanded for resentencing. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendant McCabe a new trial, and therefore affirmed that order. View "United States v. McCabe" on Justia Law

Servicios, a Venezuela corporation, filed suit in district court against John Deere, a Louisiana corporation, for breach of contract providing for Servicios' exclusive distributorship of John Deere products in Venezuela. Servicios appealed the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint. The court concluded that there was no per se rule against standing for non-resident aliens in federal courts, as John Deere contended, and that the principles of prudential standing did not call for the dismissal of Servicios' suit. The court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Servicios' complaint to the extent that it did so as a penalty for its perceived failure to properly brief its opposition to John Deere's motion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A., et al v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from the death of Jason Ray Brown in the Wichita County Jail while he was a pretrial detainee. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wichita County and Dr. Daniel Bolin, the physician in charge of the jail, on plaintiffs' federal civil rights claims. The court held that the district court properly analyzed this case as an episodic acts case. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Dr. Bolin and Wichita County on the issue of qualified immunity. The record contained no evidence of failure of the system of medical care at the Wichita County Jail that would indicate that the the county or the doctor were deliberately indifferent in maintaining that policy. View "Brown, et al v. Wichita County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint, and several amended complaints, against the Louisiana Department of Corrections, asserting that threats and harassment had occurred periodically since July 2006; that he had suffered an excessive use of force in July 2006 and on November 11, 2009; that he had suffered a denial of medical care, a due process denial resulting from an extended stay in lockdown; and state law assault and battery. Because the court found that pre-filing administrative exhaustion was required pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), the court reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment and remanded for entry of judgment dismissing the complaint. View "Gonzalez v. Seal, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contended that the district court's interpretation of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701, was erroneous. Plaintiff alleged that the statute applied and protected all text and data stored on her personal cell phone which defendants accessed without plaintiff's permission. The Act prohibited accessing without authorization a facility through which an electronic communications service was provided and thereby obtain access to electronic communication while it was in electronic storage. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the text messages and photos stored on plaintiff's cell phone were not in "electronic storage" as defined by the Act and were thus outside the scope of the statute. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to recuse the district court judge. View "Garcia v. City of Laredo, Texas, et al" on Justia Law

ASARCO filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the bankruptcy court. Lehman was retained as ASARCO's financial advisor and investment banker during the bankruptcy proceedings. Lehman subsequently commenced its own bankruptcy proceedings. Barclays then acquired Lehman's investment banking and financial advisory businesses. At issue on appeal was the fee dispute between ASARCO and Barclays. The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in awarding the $975,000 fee enhancement to Barclays. Although the court found no reversible error, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court for it to consider whether a Success Fee was appropriate in light of the court's conclusion that the fee enhancement award was made in error. View "ASARCO, L.L.C., et al v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a finding that a lawful permanent resident of the United States' conviction of burglary of a vehicle under New Mexico's burglary statute rendered him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for committing a crime of violence. The court concluded that the burglary under the New Mexico statute did constitute a crime of violence where it entailed a significant likelihood that force would be used against another's property. Because the court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's remaining claims, the court dismissed them. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants contested a summary judgment holding that the Mississippi Caller ID Anti-Spoofing Act (ASA), Miss. Code Ann. 77-3-805, violated the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs provide nationwide third-party spoofing services to individuals and entities. In light of the carefully-drafted language in section 227(e)(1) of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 (TCIA), 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(1), and legislative history, and in spite of the presumption against preemption that attached to a state's exercise of its police power, there was an inherent federal objective in the TCIA to protect non-harmful spoofing. The ASA's proscription of non-harmful spoofing frustrated this federal objective and was, therefore, conflict preempted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Teltech Systems, Inc., et al v. Bryant, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed as a technician by Aerotek, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Miller and Aerotek on her negligent hiring claim under Mississippi law. Plaintiff alleged that she was forcibly raped by an employee of Aerotek. The court held that Mississippi law did not impose a duty on employers to conduct criminal background checks, at least within the factual circumstances of this case; non-compliance with internal corporate hiring policies was probative of, but not dispositive of, evidence of negligence under Mississippi law; and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Miller and Aerotek should have known of the employee's violent propensity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keen v. Robertson, et al" on Justia Law