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

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the automotive magazines that were confiscated from him while he was an inmate participating in the TDCJ Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) violated his constitutional rights. SOTP 02.06 prohibited participants in the program from having certain publications. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were moot because TDCJ has replaced SOTP 02.06 with a new version of the rule that corrected the deficiencies that plaintiff complained of and that plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages were precluded because he did not suffer injury in connection with his constitutional claims. View "Stauffer v. Gearhart, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction under 18 U.S.C. 2332a(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's argument that his motion to suppress evidence gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801, 1805(a), 1824(a), was improperly denied. Based on the court's own thorough review of the classified materials at issue in camera, the court concluded that defendant's inference that the government likely never made the requisite showing that the searches were validly authorized under section 1805 and 1824 was incorrect. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction regarding the crime of attempt. Finally, defendant's sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Aldawsari" on Justia Law

This case involved copper sheeting owned by BMI that was stolen while MTS stored it in its warehouse. Aon had issued an insurance policy to BMI which covered the stolen copper. Defendant MTS and Intervenor Defendants KDP and SMA appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of UNIC in a declaratory judgment insurance coverage dispute. The district court held that UNIC's first-party insurance policy issued to MTS was excess to BMI's own insurance policy and, therefore, no coverage existed under UNIC's policy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that the Aon policy constituted "other insurance" with respect to the UNIC policy. Pursuant to Exclusion K, no coverage existed under the UNIC policy for the thefts of BMI's copper. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying KDP's Rule 59 motion where there was no conflict between the district court's final judgment and its memorandum opinion. View "United National Ins. Co. v. Mundell Terminal Servs., et al." on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's holding in a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), 26 U.S.C. 6221-6234, proceeding that valuation misstatement and substantial understatement tax penalties were inapplicable to NPR. The court concluded that, in this partnership-level proceeding, (1) valuation misstatement penalties under section 6662(e) and (h) were applicable; (2) a substantial underpayment penalty under section 6662(d) was applicable because there was no substantial authority for the tax treatment of the transactions at issue; (3) NPR failed to carry its burden of establishing a reasonable-cause defense under section 6664; and (4) the Taxpayers' respective, individual reasonable-cause defenses under section 6664 were partner-level defenses that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the finality of the notice of a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA); reversed regarding the valuation misstatement and substantial underpayment penalties; reversed regarding NPR's reasonable-cause defense; and vacated regarding Taxpayers' reasonable-cause defenses. View "NPR Investments, L.L.C. v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed the Tax Court's judgments upholding in part the deficiency asserted by the Commissioner related to research and development tax credits claimed by Farouk Systems, a company which petitioners were investors. The court concluded that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by limiting petitioners to the introduction of dozens of sample records of its laboratory tests as opposed to the over 4,500 pages that petitioners sought to admit where introduction of all the records would have resulted in needless delay, wasted time, and unnecessary cumulative evidence, which substantially outweighed the minimal probative value of the additional records; the court rejected petitioners' argument that the Tax Court's conclusion that they had not proven their case amounted to acceptance of a reversal of an unrecorded concession that the Commissioner would not "challenge the sufficiency of available documentary substantiation;" petitioners' argument that the Tax Court imposed an inappropriate "standard of exactitude" that required them to produce specific documentation was unsupported by the record; the Tax Court did not err in refusing to estimate the amount of credit due petitioners for the qualified services performed; the Tax Court's implicit inclusion that petitioners had not proven that Defendant Shami engaged in direct supervision was not clearly erroneous; the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that petitioners had not proven whether Defendants Shami and McCall had engaged in qualified research and, if so, how much of their time was spent on such activities; petitioners waived their argument alleging that the Tax Court's findings was clearly erroneous because it ignored the fact that Shami was credited as an inventor on certain patents; and the Tax Court's failure to include the supply costs as proper qualified research expenses when calculating each petitioner's deficiency was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Shami, et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law

Petitioner, scheduled to be executed, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding whether he was entitled to habeas relief as a result of the United States' binding international treaty obligations - as interpreted in the decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights dated January 15, 2014 - which entitled him to remain alive to secure his access to the juridical review and reconsideration of his conviction. The court denied petitioner's request for COA and his associated request for stay of execution because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claim. View "Tamayo v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Petitioner, scheduled to be executed, appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. Petitioner had filed successive habeas petitions alleging, among other things, that he did not receive a fair trial in light of newly discovered evidence and that his sentence was illegal and unconstitutional based on his alleged mental retardation. The petitions were denied and then petitioner filed the instant action seeking a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to set aside. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion. On the merits, the court concluded that, following Supreme Court precedent, a change in decisional law did not constitute the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to support Rule 60(b) relief; and petitioner's claim was not brought within a "reasonable time." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, granted petitioner's motion for informa pauperis on appeal, and denied the stay of execution. View "Tamayo v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence following the revocation of a prior probation sentence. The court concluded that the sentencing court committed clear error by violating Tapia v. United States where the sentencing court explicitly indicated that the sentence was imposed for the purpose of resolving defendant's untreated drug problem. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Wooley" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of making false statements regarding a credit application, appealed his sentence and order of restitution. Defendant forged the signatures of borrowers on an application for modification to a loan related to a certain property. Because the district court neither made factual findings concerning defendant's conduct nor explained which statutes defendant violated, the court was unable to determine whether defendant's dealings with the home buyers and sellers were criminal. The district court made no findings of fact as to whether defendant's dealings with the home buyers and sellers were part of the same common scheme or whether his criminal acts must have actually caused these losses. Further, the district court erred by awarding restitution based on relevant conduct that went beyond defendant's offense of conviction. An award of restitution based on losses not resulting from the offense of conviction is an error that is clear and obvious. In this instance, the error resulted in an award of more than half a million dollars against defendant. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's sentence and restitution award and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Benns" on Justia Law

Defendants Simpson and Shafer appealed their sentences and convictions for participation in a wire and mail fraud conspiracy in the telecommunications industry. The court affirmed Simpsons' convictions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting the transmission of spam, and obstruction of justice; reversed Simpson's conviction for false registration of a domain name where there was no evidence showing that camophone.com was used in the course of the conspiracy; vacated and remanded Simpson's sentence; and affirmed Shafer's conviction and sentence for conspiracy. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law