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

Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault. This case arose out of the sentencing proceeding that stemmed from defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250. The court held that the district court erred by relying on bare arrest records when determining defendant's conditions of supervised release and the "no direct or indirect" condition was flawed by substantive error. Accordingly, the court vacated the imposition of the mental-health treatment condition and remanded for resentencing. The court reversed the imposition of the "no director or indirect" contact condition. View "United States v. Windless" on Justia Law

X Tech filed suit against Geotest, alleging breach of an exclusive teaming agreement to submit a teamed bid on a USAF solicitation for testing equipment by teaming with another partner, Raytheon, on a competing bid. The jury found that Geotest breached an agreement with X Tech to "exclusively team to jointly pursue" the USAF solicitation and the district court entered judgment in favor of X Tech. The court concluded that the district court properly disposed of the parties' motions for directed verdict; concluded that the evidence proffered at trial was sufficient to support the jury's findings; affirmed the judgment of the district court and remanded to allow the district court to adjudge and award appellate attorney's fees; and denied X Tech's opposed motion to file a supplemental reply brief and Geotest's motion to file a supplemental brief as moot. View "X Technologies, Inc. v. Marvin Test Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the wife and children of the decedent, filed suit against defendants after the decedent died in the hospital after being administered a transdermal pain patch. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's joinder of several non-diverse defendants and the district court's remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(e). The court joined its sister circuits and held that section 1447(d) precluded appellate review of a remand order issued pursuant to section 1447(e). Moreover, appellate review of the district court's joinder ruling was barred. Accordingly, the court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Fontenot, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his motion to remand his retaliation suit against CVS and the district court's conclusions of law. Plaintiff worked as a CVS pharmacist until his termination. The court concluded that CVS's removal was timely where the removal clock was not triggered until CVS received a copy of an "amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which" it was first ascertainable that the case was removable. The individual defendants were improperly joined because CVS demonstrated that plaintiff had no reasonable possibility of recovery against the individual defendants under Texas law. Therefore, the parties had complete diversity and the district court had jurisdiction. On the merits, plaintiff's retaliation claim failed where CVS terminated plaintiff for legitimate non-retaliatory reasons. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, interstate travel in aid of racketeering activity, and possession of an unregistered firearm. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2-4 on double jeopardy grounds; the district court did not err in applying the good-faith exception and denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained at his home; certain statements defendant made to police were not inadmissible as fruit of a poisonous tree and the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Tovar" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking in counterfeit goods and sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence. The district court denied the motion and denied a certificate of appealability. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court erred in denying defendant's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence resulting from his involvement in a conspiracy to rob an armored truck. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to give an entrapment instruction; because defendant failed to set out a prima facie case that he was entrapped, his evidentiary insufficiency argument was unavailing; defendant was not entitled to a sentencing entrapment defense even if it were available in this circuit; the district court's denial of a sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 was not in error; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as next-friend to her minor daughter, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against high school softball coaches, alleging that the coaches disclosed the daughter's sexual orientation during a disciplinary meeting with plaintiff, primarily claiming the disclosure to plaintiff constituted a Fourteenth Amendment invasion of the daughter's privacy. The court held that there was no clearly established law holding that a student in a public secondary school had a privacy right under the Fourteenth Amendment that precluded school officials from discussing with a parent the student's private matters, including matters relating to the sexual activity of the student. The court also held that such students have no clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right that barred a student-coach confrontation in a closed and locked room. Therefore, the court concluded that the coaches were entitled to qualified immunity that barred the federal claims against them. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated in part and remanded for entry of judgment dismissing the federal claims against the coaches. View "Wyatt v. Fletcher, et al." on Justia Law