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

Chandler was a police officer when he joined “Dreamboard,” an online bulletin board which conditioned membership on sharing child pornography. He posted at least 117 images, most of which were children, ages eight to 14 years, posing or engaging in sexual acts with adults. Charged with: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(g); conspiring to advertise the distribution of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(d)(1), (e), and conspiring to distribute child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), Chandler pleaded guilty to engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, and the other counts were dismissed. The district court calculated Chandler’s Guidelines range as 240-293 months. In the PSR, the probation officer stated that there were no factors warranting a departure or variance. The district court rejected Chandler’s motion for downward departure and imposed a sentence of 420 months of imprisonment, noting Chandler’s abuse of his public office as a law enforcement officer, his use of other people’s internet connections to attempt to hide his participation in the scheme, and his frequent posts. The Fifth Circuit remanded, holding that Chandler’s position as a police officer did not justify the increased sentence because there was no evidence that he used his position to facilitate the offense. View "United States v. Chandler" on Justia Law

Defendants Powell and Akin appealed their conviction and sentence on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendants' respective motions to suppress; the evidence was legally sufficient to support Akin's conviction; while the statements admitted in evidence against Powell did not violate the Confrontation Clause under the Bruton doctrine, the prosecutor's use of these statements for cross examination purposes was in error; the prosecutor's statements, though legally inexcusable, were harmless in light of the other evidence presented at trial; the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 to Powell's sentence; and Powell's sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Powell, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the denial of her application for an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Because petitioner entered the United States on a K-1 visa, she was required to marry the person who petitioned for her visa or depart the country within 90 days. Petitioner did neither, but instead, remained in the United States and subjected herself to removal and the bar to adjustment for status found in 8 U.S.C. 1255(d). Sections 1255(a) and 1255(d) announced no special rules for Violence Against Women Act, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I), self-petitioners that created an exception to the section 1255(d) bar. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Le v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Dolgencorp, operator of a Dollar General store on the Choctaw reservation, filed suit seeking to enjoin John Doe and the tribal defendants from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The underlying tort claims stemmed from Doe's suit alleging that a manager sexually molested him while he was working at the Dollar General store. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Dolgencorp's motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants because Dolgencorp's consensual relationship with Doe gave rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe's claims under Montana v. United States. View "Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. v. MS Band of Choctaw Indians, et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated cases arose out of an accident aboard Estis Rig 23, a barge supporting a truck-mounted drilling rig. The principal issue was whether seamen could recover punitive damages for their employer's willful and wanton breach of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. Like maintenance and cure, unseaworthiness was established as a general maritime claim before the passage of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104; punitive damages were available under general maritime law; and the Jones Act did not address unseaworthiness or limit its remedies. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that punitive damages remained available as a remedy for the general maritime law claim of unseaworthiness. View "McBride, et al. v. Estis Well Service L. L. C." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform oil spill. On appeal, BP challenged the district court's decision upholding the Claims Administrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement between it and the class of parties injured in the oil spill and the district court's dismissal of its action for breach of contract against the Administrator and denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the balance of equities favored a tailored stay where those who experienced actual injury traceable to loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident continued to receive recovery but those who did not receive their payments until this case was fully heard and decided through the judicial process weighed in favor of BP. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and instructed the district court to expeditiously craft a narrowly-tailored injunction that allowed the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of significant issues on remand. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of BP's suit against the Claim Administrator. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the judgment of the district court affirming the final judgment entered by the bankruptcy court on certain state-law counterclaims that appellant filed against appellees, attorneys who were authorized by the bankruptcy court to represent appellant in a separate lawsuit. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court was within its authority to enter a final judgment on appellant's state-law counterclaims for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, as these claims were necessarily resolved in the course of ruling on appellees' fee applications; the court agreed with the bankruptcy court that these claims failed on the merits; the court upheld the final judgment on the fee applications; the court held that the bankruptcy court erred in entering a final judgment on appellant's Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act state-law counterclaim because it was not necessary to resolve it in the course of ruling on the attorneys' fee applications. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Frazin v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Police officers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, alleging, inter alia, that the Lafayette PD Defendants imposed a "code of silence" to prevent police officers from reporting certain civil rights abuses and corruption within the police department and that these defendants retaliated against them for objecting to these practices. On appeal, police officers challenged the district court's grant of a protective order requiring, among other things, that a particular website they operated be "taken down" in its entirety, which was issued at the request of officials and entities within the Lafayette PD. Concluding that the court had appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, the court held that the district court erred in concluding that the entirety of the website was substantially likely to cause prejudice; the district court's determination that the entire website demonstrated a substantial likelihood of impacting the jury venire was overbroad and clearly erroneous; and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Marceaux, et al. v. Lafayette City-Parish Con. Gov't, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when United of Omaha denied plaintiff's claim for benefits from a life insurance policy taken out by plaintiff's daughter. The policy at issue lapsed for nonpayment of premiums and was then reinstated. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court failed to correctly apply Texas law governing incontestability provisions in life insurance contracts and that the district court erred by expanding the interpretation of the insurance contract. The court found it logical to conclude that Texas Insurance Code 1101.006 treated policy issuances and policy reinstatements in a uniform manner, when neither section 1101.006 nor 28 Texas Administrative Code 3.104(a) provided any reason to treat issuances and reinstatements differently. Although the court's interpretation of the relationship between sections 1101.006 and 3.104(a) differed from that of the district court, the court concluded that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on this issue. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining claim and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cardenas v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law