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

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry, arguing that the district court's admission of his grandmother's affidavit violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Based on the court's review of the record, the court concluded that the government failed to establish that the affidavit was not created for the primary purpose of providing evidence for a later criminal trial. Because the government has not met its burden to prove that the affidavit was nontestimonial, the district court erred in admitting the affidavit. Because the district court's error was not harmless, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Duron-Caldera" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court ordered debtor's counsel to return all consideration he received, but in so doing it imposed an additional sanction beyond return of compensation. A bankruptcy judge may regulate attorney compensation by ordering debtor's counsel to return to the estate excessive compensation, 11 U.S.C. 329(b). Separately, a bankruptcy judge has authority to discipline attorneys who violate the disclosure requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. In this case, the court reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court's order because a bankruptcy judge's reach under the plain language of section 329(b) was limited to attorney compensation. View "Baker v. Cage" on Justia Law

The Gartleys filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against their former business partner, debtor, and his wife, co-debtor. The court concluded that In re Strangel remained good law, and the failure to file a timely notice of appeal in the district court leaves the district court without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear debtor's appeal, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, vacated the decision of the district court, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal. View "Smith v. Gartley" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's conclusion that he was inadmissible because there was reason to believe that he was a drug trafficker. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for review and dismissed the petition where a prior conviction was not required for an alien to be removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), and where DHS has shown through reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence that petitioner was engaged in illicit trafficking. View "Cuevas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Appellant was involved in two lawsuits with appellees and both lawsuits resulted in sanctions against him and an award of attorney's fees in favor of appellees. After appealing, appellant filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. At issue was whether defensive appellate rights were considered property under Texas law. The court affirmed the district court's determination that defensive appellate rights were property under Texas law and saleable by the bankruptcy estate. View "Croft v. Lowry, et al." on Justia Law

John Johnson Jr. filed suit in state court against defendants, including Weeks Marine and Standard Concrete, for injuries he sustained when he fell from his crane while working on a project. This case concerned the terms of an indemnity agreement between Weeks Marine and Standard Concrete. Weeks Marine, the general contractor on the project, sought a declaration that Standard Concrete, Johnson's employer, was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify it in the underlying state court action. The court concluded that the indemnity agreement did not cover the underlying state court action and Weeks Marine pointed to no facts on appeal that lead the court to conclude otherwise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Standard Concrete. View "Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Standard Concrete Products, Inc." on Justia Law

D.R. Horton petitioned for review of the Board's holding that D.R. Horton had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by requiring its employees to sign an arbitration agreement that, among other things, prohibited an employee from pursuing claims in a collective or class action. After addressing issues regarding the composition of the Board, the court concluded that the Board's decision did not give proper weight to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2. The court upheld the Board, though, on requiring D.R. Horton to clarify with its employees that the arbitration agreement did not eliminate their rights to pursue claims of unfair labor practices with the Board. View "D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions on numerous counts related to their involvement in schemes to commit health care fraud, receive or pay healthcare kickbacks, and/or make false statements for use in determining rights for benefit and payment by Medicare. The district court's oral pronouncement of Defendant Njoku's sentence on Count 2 was 60 months' imprisonment but the written judgment provided for a sentence of 63 months. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court to amend Njoku's written judgment to conform to her oral sentence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Njoku, et al." on Justia Law

The State filed six in parens patriae complaints in state court alleging that six credit card companies (defendants) violated the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), Miss. Code Ann. 75-24-1, by charging consumers for products they did not want or need. Defendants removed to federal court arguing that there was federal subject matter jurisdiction because this was a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), 1453, 171 1-171 5, and because the State's MCPA claims were preempted by the federal National Banking Act (NBA), 12 C.F.R. Part 37. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that neither CAFA nor complete preemption by the NBA provided the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. View "Hood, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims arising out of the threatened foreclosure on two residential investment properties he owned. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Deutsche Bank was a mortgagee and could proceed with the foreclosure action; as a non-party mortgagor, and without any evidence showing plaintiff to be an intended third-party beneficiary, the court concluded that plaintiff lacked the requisite standing to bring suit to enforce the terms of the Pooling & Services Agreement that governed the assignment of the mortgagor's notes; and the requirement in Tex. Prop. Code 51.0001(3) that the current mortgagee provide the notice required the court also to consider defendants' argument that quasi-estoppel under Texas law precluded plaintiff from challenging GMAC's status as mortgage servicer. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law