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

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner argued that the district court violated the due process requirements of Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman by refusing to provide constitutionally adequate funding for experts. The court concluded that petitioner's claim failed on the merits because Ford and Panetti merely established that petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to present his own expert testimony before a neutral decisionmaker. The fact that the court did not accede to all of petitioner's demands for additional funding could not be fairly characterized as an abuse of discretion. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in finding petitioner competent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment under Ford and Panetti, and that petitioner was not entitled to relief from his 1995 conviction under the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Indiana v. Edwards because Edwards was not retroactively applicable on collateral review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second and third federal habeas petitions. View "Panetti v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint against Cardinal under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, based on an implied false certification of "merchantability" by Cardinal to the VA in connection with the sales of Cardinal's Signature Edition Infusion Device (Signature pump). In regards to plaintiff's implied false certification theory, plaintiff's new allegations that merchantability was a "standard condition," or material condition, of Cardinal's contract with the VA, or that the VA would not have paid for the Signature pumps had it known of the defect, were deficient under Rule 9(b). In regards to plaintiff's claim that the Signature pumps were worthless goods, plaintiff failed to allege that any Signature pump sold to the VA over nine years was ever found to be deficient or worthless; failed to allege that any patient was harmed due to the use of the Signature pump at a VA hospital; and that the VA was ever sued due to injury caused by a malfunctioning pump. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to plead her claims with sufficient particularity and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "United States, ex rel. Leslie Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to possess illicit substances aboard an aircraft with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 963. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a plan to transport cocaine from South America to the United Kingdom on board commercial airplanes. The court concluded that Congress intended that the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy charge - possession with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 959(b) - applied extraterritorially; section 963 could be applied extraterritorially; under Blackmer v. United States, application of section 959(b) to Defendant Parker, a U.S. citizen, did not violate the Due Process Clause; extraterritorial application of section 959(b)(2) in this case was permissible as implementing Congress' treaty-making power under the Necessary and Proper Clause; and the recital of facts and the elements of conspiracy to commit the relevant offense was sufficient to enable defendants to prepare their defenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lawrence, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of six counts of aiding and abetting in bank fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his participation in a scheme to fraudulently obtain funds by straw credit card purchases. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the government did not support with sufficient proof the essential financial-institution element of the bank-fraud counts charged in the indictment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (Count 1), attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States (Count 2), and four counts of possession of a weapon in furtherance of a federal crime of violence (Count 3-6). Defendant was arrested before he could carry out a plan to detonate a bomb and shoot service members stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found at the time of his arrest and statements that he made to police where, under all the circumstances, the stop was a proper investigatory detention and was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court also concluded that there was no clear or obvious error in defendant's conviction for multiple firearms offenses where the evidence allowed for the inference of two possessions and purposes for the firearm. Finally, the district court's denial of additional funds for defendant to hire an expert witness did not result in an unfair trial and the court found no error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Abdo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of a lesser-included-offense instruction and the district court's admission of baggies of cocaine into evidence. The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that simple possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a) was not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a lesser-included offense jury instruction. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the baggies into evidence where any prejudice attributable to these baggies was outweighed by their probative ability to link defendant to the DEA agent's purchase. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ambriz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs became eligible for an award of overtime wages after a jury found plaintiffs, executive managers of Party City, were misclassified by their employer as exempt under the the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. At issue on appeal was how much overtime pay Party City owed to its employees under the FLSA. The court held that the record evidence clearly showed that plaintiffs were paid a fixed weekly salary and were expected to work fluctuating weekly hours. Therefore, the district court's 55-hour method of calculating unpaid overtime damages was error, because it miscomprehended the employment arrangement and utilized a divisor of 55 in calculating plaintiffs' regular rate of pay rather than applying a divisor equal to the number of hours actually worked in such workweek. Accordingly, the court reversed the erroneous amount of damages awarded and vacated the amount of actual damages, remanding for recalculation. The court also vacated the award of liquidated damages and the amount of attorneys' fee award, remanding for reconsideration. View "Ransom, et al. v. M. Patel Enterprises, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of a certified class of securities fraud plaintiffs whose certification order was vacated in 2004 (the Drnek action), filed a class action in 2009 reciting the same claims previously outlined in the Drnek action. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' claims have been extinguished because they filed their class action more than five years after the Drnek court vacated its certification order. The court held that the Drnek court's vacatur of certification caused American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah tolling to cease and the statute of repose to resume running. Because plaintiffs brought this action after the statute of repose expired, their claim has been extinguished. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hall, et al. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others, filed suit against several governmental and private parties after her husband died in a training accident at the Texas Department of Public Safety Training Academy. Because this case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there was no controlling Texas precedent, the court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the receipt of benefits under Texas Labor Code 417.002. View "Carty v. Texas Dep't of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a general partnership comprised of two musicians, filed suit alleging copyright infringement against defendant, Lakewood Church, over the use of a song entitled, "Signaling Through the Flames." Plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate its voluntary dismissal under Rule 60(b), which the district court granted. Defendant appealed. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was a final proceeding under Rule 60(b) and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. View "Yesh Music, et al. v. Lakewood Church, et al." on Justia Law