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

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries, filed a product liability and wrongful death action against defendants. At issue on appeal was whether the Supreme Court's recent decision in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro rendered the court's stream-of-commerce approach to personal jurisdiction improper. The court found that the application of the stream-of-commerce approach in this case did not run afoul of McIntyre's narrow holding and, therefore, affirmed the district court's interlocutory order finding personal jurisdiction and denying dismissal. View "Ainsworth v. Moffett Engineering, Ltd." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for conspiracy to steal trade secrets and perjury. The Government contended that defendant, who worked on research and development, conspired to steal Dow Chemical's trade secrets regarding a type of chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) and sell that information to Chinese companies for his own profit. The principal issue on appeal concerned the propriety of the court's ruling excluding the testimony of defendant's engineering expert. Because of the witness's training and experience as a chemical engineer and his broad experience in chemical plants, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in excluding his opinion testimony related to the manufacturing of CPE. However, given the overwhelming evidence that defendant and his co-conspirators stole trade secrets and that defendant believed he was stealing trade secrets, the court concluded that the exclusion of the witness's testimony did not affect the verdict. Further, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's perjury conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Liu" on Justia Law

Vinmar appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration panel award to Tricon for damages and post-award interest on those damages at 8.5% because Vinmar breached a contract. Vinmar claimed that the parties never agreed to arbitrate and Tricon cross-appealed, contending that the district court improperly granted postjudgment interest at the statutory rate instead of the rate assigned by the arbitrators. The court concluded that the evidence conclusively demonstrated that Tricon and Vinmar reached a binding agreement to arbitrate even though they did not sign the contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. The court also affirmed the award and concluded that the arbitrators in this case did not award postjudgment interest, but post-award interest. View "Tricon Energy Ltd. v. Vinmar Int'l, Ltd." on Justia Law

Petitioners, citizens of Pakistan, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that they could not adjust their status because for more than 180 days, they had not been in "lawful status." The BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that petitioners failed to maintain continuous lawful status since their entry into the United States and failed to qualify for any exception to the requirement. The court concluded that the BIA properly denied "lawful status" and reasonably determined that petitioners had failed to maintain theirs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dhuka, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, contending that the district court erred in imposing supervised release and in failing to explicitly address his arguments in favor of a downward variance. Considering the sentencing hearing in this case, the court concluded that the district court supplied a sufficiently particularized explanation of its decision to impose supervised release. The court's review of the record as a whole confirmed that the district court considered defendant's mitigation arguments, weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and provided a reasoned basis for its decision. Accordingly, defendant had not shown that the district court committed significant procedural error in declining to explicitly address his arguments for a shorter sentence. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Becerril-Pena" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, applied for state habeas relief. The district court granted petitioner a certificate of appealability limited to the question of whether the trial court denied him a fair trial by not dismissing, sua sponte, Juror Number 12. The court concluded that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' decision denying relief on petitioner's juror bias claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Petitioner had not cited any Supreme Court precedent establishing state trial courts have a duty to sua sponte dismiss a purportedly biased juror; no Supreme Court precedent established an obligation for a trial judge to dismiss a juror for bias where no party objected; and petitioner's claim was barred by Teague v. Lane. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Washington v. Thaler" on Justia Law

A jury found that Raytheon willfully violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Tex. Lab. Code 21.001 et seq., by terminating plaintiff because of his age. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed the finding of liability; affirmed in part the award of liquidated damages, and vacated the liquidated damages award for enhanced pension because it was a future, not past loss; vacated the damages for mental anguish, rejected plaintiff's issues on cross-appeal; and remanded for reconsideration of the front pay award. View "Miller v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess and distribute pseudoephedrine. Defendant primarily argued that some of the evidence against him - the pseudoephedrine logs - were introduced in violation of the business records exception to the hearsay rule and the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause. The court affirmed the conviction because the purchase transaction logs conformed to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 803(6), and because the Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts approved the use of nontestimonial business records without a live witness. The court also found no reversible error in the refusal of a safety valve sentence reduction and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Towns, Jr." on Justia Law

Southwest appealed the district court's dismissal of its claim regarding the Medicare Part D statute, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-101 et seq., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Citing Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Southwest argued that its claim provided a narrow exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(h)'s requirement that required a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a claim in federal court. The court concluded that caselaw interpreting the application of section 405(h) to Medicare claims emphasized that the Illinois Council exception was extremely narrow and appropriately applied only in cases where judicial review would be entirely unavailable through the prescribed administrative procedures. Because Southwest has not carried its heavy burden of showing that the Illinois Council exception applied, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the suit. View "Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2554 application challenging his guilty-plea conviction for intoxicated manslaughter with a vehicle. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential standard, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in allowing the State's plea bargain offer to lapse; that trial counsel violated his right to self-representation when he denied his request to proceed pro se at trial; and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding his right to self-representation by refusing to withdraw from the case and by having a conflict of interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas petition. View "Miller v. Thaler" on Justia Law