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

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base or crack cocaine. Defendant appealed. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's denial of his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea. The only potentially meritorious issue was whether defense counsel's refusal to file the motion was in fact constitutionally deficient and prejudiced defendant. However, the court need not resolve that issue in order to conclude that the district court's decision was soundly based. Defendant will have to file an 18 U.S.C. 2255 petition in order to explore the ineffectiveness claim properly. The court also rejected defendant's request for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, based on Dorsey v. United States. View "United States v. Minor" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court committed no procedural error where it weighed defendant's argument for a below-guidelines sentence, but, in light of the totality of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, the district court found the defense's points only persuasive enough to warrant a sentence at the guidelines range's low end. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence was appropriate in light of concerns that defendant and the government raised. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's interlocutory judgment in the district court. While the motion was pending, the bankruptcy court, sua sponte, certified its judgment for direct appeal to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)(A)(i) and (iii). The court agreed with the bankruptcy court's ruling on cross-motions for partial summary judgment in favor of FGB that the Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage that FGB recorded was valid and that the property underlying that mortgage, the Deluxe Motel, secured both the loan FGB made to debtor and the loan FGB made to a second entity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hari Aum, L.L.C. v. First Guaranty Bank" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child. Petitioner moved for a new trial alleging that his trial attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel when they failed to preserve error by declining to use a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror. The state subsequently appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief to petitioner after his claim had been denied on the merits in state proceedings. The court agreed with the district court that the retaliation bar in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), forbade the court to disregard the state courts' factual findings and legal conclusions. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered a judgment of dismissal. View "Morales v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney and the brother-in-law of Trent Lott, appealed from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging one of his two convictions for bribing a judge. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his bribe of a circuit court judge in a lawsuit involving a fee-sharing dispute with co-counsel (the "Wilson Case"). Defendant offered to recommend the judge to Lott, who at the time was a U.S. Senator, for a district court judgeship in exchange for the judge's help in winning the Wilson Case. The court concluded that Skilling v. United States, which addressed the constitutionality of the honest-services statute, 18 U.S.C. 1346, had no effect on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over defendant's guilty plea. Defendant had shown neither his actual innocence of post-Skilling honest-services fraud nor that there was cause and prejudice for failing to raise a constitutional-vagueness challenge to section 1346. Therefore, defendant procedurally defaulted on his claim and the district court correctly denied his section 2255 motion. Finally, the court rejected defendant's First Amendment overbreadth challenge to section 1346. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scruggs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist faith, appealed from the district court's ruling on summary judgment that plaintiff's employer, First Student, reasonably accommodated his religion. Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and they emphasize the importance of refraining from secular work during this time. First Student terminated plaintiff for excessive absenteeism when he did not show up to work on Fridays. The court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate at this stage of the litigation because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether First Student reasonably accommodated plaintiff and whether accommodating plaintiff constituted an undue hardship on First Student. View "Antoine v. First Student, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants Chon, Garcia-Rico, Cardoza, and YCL were convicted of conspiring to smuggle, transport, and harbor illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). Chon was also convicted of money laundering and three counts of willfully aiding and assisting in the filing of a false tax return. The facts of this case involved the use of the Gateway Hotel, which was located in close proximity to the United States-Mexico border. Overwhelming, undisputed evidence was offered at trial that individuals conducting alien-smuggling operations utilized the Gateway Hotel as a location to harbor illegal aliens who had just crossed the border before they were transported to other locations in the United States. In these circumstances, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Chon, Cardoza, and YCL. The court also held that the sentences of Defendants Chon and Garcia-Rico were reasonable. Accordingly, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chon" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a video game publishing agreement entered into by Timegate and Gamecock. Under the terms of the agreement, Timegate was to be the developer and Gamecock was to be the publisher of a futuristic military-style video game entitled "Section 8." When their business relationship deteriorated, the parties proceeded with arbitration and the arbitrator awarded Gamecock monetary compensation and a perpetual license in the video game's intellectual property. The district court vacated the arbitrator's award, determining that the perpetual license was not consistent with the "essence" of the underlying contract. Because the agreement bestowed broad remedial powers upon the arbitrator and because it was fraudulently induced and irreversibly violated by Timegate, the perpetual license was a rational and permissible attempt to compensate Gamecock and maintain the agreement's essence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, finding that the perpetual license was a remedy that furthered the essence of the publishing agreement. View "TimeGate Studios, Inc. v. Southpeak Interactive, L.L.C., et al" on Justia Law

This matter arose from the multidistrict litigation (MDL) related to allegations that the Emergency Housing Units (EHUs) provided by FEMA in Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita contained materials which emitted dangerous levels of formaldehyde. This appeal involved only the Louisiana plaintiffs. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs' negligence claims regarding the use of EHUs were barred by the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims that FEMA negligently responded to formaldehyde complaints under the Louisiana Good Samaritan provision of the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 29:733:1. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' gross negligence claim under the misrepresentation exception to the FTCA. View "In Re: FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Lit." on Justia Law

IPS and MPES challenged the district court's final judgment, reversing and vacating the bankruptcy court's amended judgment, that their mechanics' liens on the property of debtor did not pertain to materials or labor supplied before the date on which Metrobank perfected its deed of trust lien, September 1, 2006. Hajoca and Crescent challenged the bankruptcy court's determination that their mechanics' liens also did not pertain to materials or labor supplied before September 1, 2006, which the district court upheld. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in determining that IPS and MPES had supplied materials or labor before September 1, 2006. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that Hajoca and Crescent had not supplied materials or labor before September 1, 2006. Accordingly, the court affirmed the final judgment of the district court, which reversed and vacated the amended judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "First National Bank, et al v. Crescent Electrical Supply Co., et al" on Justia Law