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

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the district court subsequently vacated the jury verdict and granted a new trial, while denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds. In consolidated appeals, the government challenged the grant of a new trial and defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that there was no error in the direct examination of a deputy marshall. Even if there was error, there was no prejudice. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no basis in which to set aside a jury verdict. Because the district court erred in ordering a new trial, the court reversed that order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict and to proceed with sentencing. The court dismissed defendant's appeal as moot. View "United States v. Poole" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a health care fraud conspiracy. The court affirmed defendant St. Junius's conviction and sentence; affirmed defendant Ramos's conviction and sentence; affirmed defendant Spicer's conviction and sentence; but vacated Spicer's terms of supervised release and remanded for resentencing where the Government conceded that the district court's award of restitution exceeded the losses derived from the conduct for which Spicer was convicted. If the district court imposes restitution, it should be limited to the losses suffered as a result of the crimes for which Spicer was convicted. View "United States v. St. Junius, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against PSEG alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and other statutes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in submitting the first special verdict question - "Was a Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability?" - where the jury-instruction definitions of "disability" and "qualified individual" properly conformed to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in submitting the third special verdict question - "Was a Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability?" Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in either jury interrogatory, there was no need to consider whether an error required reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Neely v. PSEG Texas LP, et al." on Justia Law

After South Louisiana Ethanol filed for bankruptcy, CHS filed suit contending that South Louisiana Ethanol's option contract with Plaquemines constituted the assignment of a litigious right under Louisiana law, entitling CHS to redeem the litigious right by reimbursing Plaquemines for the cost of the option contract plus interest. The district court granted Plaquemines's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the sale fit within the statutory judicial-sale exception to redemption, as described by Bluefields S.S. Co. v. Lala Ferreras Cangelosi S.S. Co. and its predecessors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the law at issue did not apply to judicial sales. View "CHS, Inc. v. Plaquemines Holdings, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood and others filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of two amendments to the laws of Texas concerning abortions (H.B. 2). Two provisions of H.B.2 were at issue: first, the requirement that a physician performing or inducing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles from the location where the abortion is provided; and second, the limitations on the use of abortion-inducing drugs to a protocol authorized by the FDA. The district court held that parts of the legislation were unconstitutional and granted the requested injunctive relief. The State appealed and filed an emergency motion to stay the district court's permanent injunction. The court concluded that the State has made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits in regards to the hospital-admitting privileges provision. There was a substantial likelihood that the State would prevail in its argument that Planned Parenthood failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the hospital-admitting-privileges requirement created a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The court also concluded that the State has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, at least in part, as to its appeal of the injunction pertaining to medication abortions. Accordingly, the court stayed the injunction pertaining to medical abortions with certain exceptions. The State has made an adequate showing as to the other factors considered in determining a stay pending appeal. The court granted the motion for stay pending appeal. View "Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Abbott, et al." on Justia Law