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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 211 kilograms of marijuana. The district court found that defendant was responsible for 2,648.8 additional kilograms of marijuana as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines. The resulting increase in his base offense level, combined with the effects of other challenged sentencing factors, enhanced his prison sentence substantially. The court rejected defendant's Sixth Amendment contention, which requires facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the government breached its plea agreement by advocating for the obstruction of justice enhancement and failing to recommend the acceptance of responsibility reduction. The court concluded that there was no indication on the record that this affected his mandatory minimum sentence and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law

This case concerned gypsum wallboard (Chinese drywall) manufactured by Chinese companies and sold to United States companies. Homeowners experienced problems with the drywall and affected parties sued entities involved in the manufacturing, importing, and installing of the drywall. This appeal encompasses three cases in the Chinese Drywall multidistrict litigation - Mitchell, Gross, and Wiltz. Picking up where the court left off in Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd., the court held that personal jurisdiction lies over Taishan Gypsum Company, Limited, and Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Company, Limited, in their respective cases. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate the preliminary default entered in Mitchell. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed the judgment of the Tax Court rendered pursuant to I.R.C. 7483. The court affirmed the Tax Court's judgment sustaining the Commissioner's determination that petitioners had an income tax deficiency and an accuracy-related addition to tax for 2007 as the result of unreported income and disallowed deductions for charitable contributions. View "Gunkle, et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Medicaid beneficiaries with near total disabilities, filed suit after being denied coverage for ceiling lifts under a categorical exclusion in the state's implementing Medicaid regulations. The district court granted summary judgment for the state. The court concluded that, under binding precedent, plaintiffs have an implied private cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to pursue their challenge; the state must comply with the requirements of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., but the Act does not preempt the state's categorical exclusions; and therefore, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and denied the motion to vacate. View "Detgen, et al. v. Janek" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to using a fraudulent visa as proof of permission to enter the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a two level enhancement for previous deportation under U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). The court affirmed the sentence, rejecting defendant's contention that because he voluntarily departed he had not "been deported" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). View "United States v. Murillo-Acosta" on Justia Law

Movant, a death row prisoner, contended that he is intellectually disabled and is, therefore, constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia. The court concluded that the evidence in the record was more than sufficient to satisfy movant's burden of making out a prima facie showing of intellectual disability sufficient to warrant a successive habeas petition. Having authorized movant to file a successive federal habeas petition asserting his Atkins claims, the court granted the motion for a stay of execution pending resolution of movant's Atkins claim. View "In re: Robert Campbell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed various products liability and general tort claims against the Brand Defendants - who initially developed and received FDA approval for metoclopramide - and Generic Defendants - who manufactured and sold the product that plaintiff used. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of his prolonged use of the drug metoclopramide, he developed tardive dyskinesia. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his claims against the Brand Defendants and grant of summary judgment to the Generic Defendants. The court held that plaintiff's products liability claims against the Generic Defendants were preempted under the holdings and reasoning of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, and that plaintiff failed to adequately plead any parallel claims. The court also held that plaintiff's claims against the Brand Defendants failed because plaintiff did not use the Brand Defendants' products and because Texas did not recognize a duty to a consumer who uses a competitor's products. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the Generic Defendants and grant of summary judgment to the Brand Defendants. View "Eckhardt, et al. v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiring to harbor illegal aliens for commercial advantage or private financial gain. The court concluded that the district court erred in admitting bad-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) but the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(5) for brandishing a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(6) for intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, and U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(7) for causing substantial bodily harm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671, against Louisiana national guardsmen for alleged negligence arising from post-Hurricane Katrina activities undertaken while they were in federal-pay status. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (the immunity statute), La. Rev. Stat. 29:735(A)(a), grants immunity to the state and its agents if they were engaged in emergency-preparedness activities. The court agreed with the district court that the guardsmen were engaged in emergency-preparedness activities and were therefore immune. In regards to plaintiff's alternative argument that the immunity statute is unconstitutional under a provision of the Louisiana Constitution, the court concluded that Louisiana's immunity statute was not unconstitutional as applied to the guardsmen who were put into the shoes of private individuals for purposes of the FTCA claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Alfonso, IV v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington; the district court committed no error under Brady v. Maryland; petitioner's claim of discrimination in selecting a grand jury foreperson was abandoned and procedurally barred; in regards to petitioner's Batson challenges, the district court did not err in holding that petitioner had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the state court's determination was unreasonable; and petitioner's claim of racial discrimination by the jury failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffman v. Cain" on Justia Law