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

Petitioner filed a complaint with OSHA, asserting that Saybolt and Core Labs had violated Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a), by retaliating against him for blowing the whistle on an alleged scheme to violate Colombian tax law. OSHA, an ALJ, and the Board all rejected petitioner's complaint. The court concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate that he engaged in protected conduct because he did not complain, based on a reasonable belief, that one of six enumerated categories of U.S. law had been violated. Petitioner had not demonstrated that he engaged in any protected activity, and given this, the court could not say that Core Labs knew that petitioner engaged in a protected activity that was a contributing factor in the unfavorable actions of withholding petitioner's pay raise and ultimately terminating him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board's dismissal of petitioner's complaint because he had not demonstrated that his claim fell within the scope of section 806. View "Villanueva v. U.S. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. At issue was whether the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for distribution of child pornography. The court found that section 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) did not contain a scienter requirement. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement absent evidence of defendant's knowledge that the file-sharing program, Frostwire, enabled other users to access the child pornography he downloaded. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's determination that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. In 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to delivering cocaine in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1). Defendant's conviction under the Florida statue did not require that he knew that the substance at issue was a controlled substance whereas a conviction under the federal statute did. Therefore, the state offense was not analogous to the federal offense. Accordingly, the court held that the Florida offense was not categorically an aggravated felony and granted the petition for review, vacating the order and remanding for further proceedings. View "Sarmientos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

This appeal presented the final set of issues arising from claims of negligent construction of a condominium project in south Mississippi. The district court held that a subcontractor's Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurer breached its duty to defend the general contractor. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that there was a duty to defend where the CGL insurer was not on notice of a claim under the policy. Consequently, the remaining appellate issues concerning the calculation and allocation of the costs of the alleged failure to defend were moot. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Carl E. Woodward, L.L.C., et al. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of CT" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24 months imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release for violating conditions of an earlier sentence of supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court improperly considered his rehabilitative needs in sentencing him. The court concluded that, in this case, although the district court certainly took rehabilitation into account, it was at most a secondary concern or additional justification for the sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in imposing defendant's sentence and the court affirmed. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of illegal reentry. The district court applied a 16-level enhancement based on its determination that defendant had committed a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant acknowledged that he was convicted under section 3-307(a)(3) of Maryland's criminal code. The court concluded that a violation of section 307(a)(3) constituted sexual abuse of a minor under the plain-meaning approach and was a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chacon" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner was granted asylum and was subsequently ordered removed on account of his criminal convictions. Because the court held that the plain language of Section 209(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1159(b), did not require an alien to maintain asylum status to be eligible for an adjustment of status, the court granted the petition for review on that issue and vacated the order of removal. The court did not review petitioner's request for relief under the Convention Against Torture because the court was bound by its precedent holding that the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252, divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction to do so. View "Siwe v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

CULS appealed the dismissal of its petition for involuntary bankruptcy filed against Green Hills under 11 U.S.C. 303. Congress has made clear that a claimholder did not have standing to file an involuntary petition if there was a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount of the claim. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal on the alternative ground that CULS lacked standing to bring the involuntary petition where CULS' claim was subject to a bona fide dispute. The court denied Green Hills' motion for sanctioning CULS for filing a frivolous appeal and concluded that sanctions were not appropriate in this case where CULS' contentions, while not ultimately meritorious, were not entirely unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal, granted CULS' motion for judicial notice of an order denying in part another motion by CULS for summary judgment, and denied Green Hills' motion for sanctions. View "Credit Union Liquidity Servs. v. Green Hills Dev. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose from the collapse of a real estate transaction. The ART entities filed suit alleging that Clapper defrauded them by representing that "there was no title problems," and seeking a declaratory judgment that they "properly terminated" the deal. The Clapper entities countersued, alleging that the ART entities breached the agreement by purporting to terminate the deal. In this appeal, the court held that the ART entities' decision not to cross-appeal the jury's fraud findings in the first district proceeding prevented them from raising the same rejected fraud claims in the second district court proceeding. Because the contribution amounts overlap, and because the parties neither identified language in the agreement nor an explanation from the district court supporting this double counting of damages, the court held that the district court's decision to combine the amounts was in error. Accordingly, the court vacated the award of combined contribution amounts and remanded for further proceedings. The court addressed remaining claims and affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "American Midwest, Inc., et al. v. Clapper, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that the issue was encompassed within defendant's appeal waiver. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal because defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada" on Justia Law