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

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty of being illegally present in the United States after removal. The court affirmed the district court's application of a sixteen-level crime-of-violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his Texas conviction of indecency with a child. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Elizondo-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for passing an altered obligation of the United States with intent to defraud. Defendant attempted to pass a forged $100 bill at a Dollar Tree. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the Government's exhibit 2 was the bill that was passed to the Dollar Tree and, therefore, the district court did not err in admitting the counterfeit bill into evidence; the district court did not plainly err regarding the in-court identifications of the witnesses at trial; there was no plain error because defendant was handcuffed during the testimony of a witness; the district court properly imposed a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) for manufacturing or producing counterfeit obligation or possessing or having custody of or control over a counterfeiting device or materials; and challenges to his indictment and sentence as violating the rule set forth in Alleyne v. United States were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner was denied special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 203(a)(1), 111 Stat. 2160, 2196, because the BIA considered his 1992 Virginia conviction for "carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age" an aggravated felony as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A). The court concluded that petitioner's conviction under the Virginia statute necessarily means that he also has been convicted of the generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated felony within the INA. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Contreras v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Bluebonnet appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Wells Fargo on Bluebonnet's claim for rescission of contract. The court concluded that Bluebonnet has not demonstrated a genuine factual issue as to whether there is an error vitiating its consent to the swap agreement at issue and warranting rescission. The court's conclusion is supported by it's previous decision in Dameware Development, L.L.C. v. American General Life Insurance Co., in which the court held that there was no failure of cause constituting error or warranting rescission of a contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bluebonnet Hotel Ventures v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

BP and Andarko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the the government on the question of their liability for civil penalties under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A). Section 1321(b)(7)(A) imposes mandatory penalties upon the owners of facilities "from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged." The court found no genuine dispute as to defendants' liability for civil penalties where the well's cement failed, resulting in the loss of controlled confinement of oil such that the oil ultimately entered navigable waters. Therefore, the well is a facility "from which oil or a hazardous substance was discharged""into or upon the navigable waters of the United States." Andarko and BP "shall be subject to a civil penalty" calculated in accordance with statutory and regulatory guidelines and this liability is unaffected by the path traversed by the discharged oil. Nor is liability precluded by any culpability on the part of the vessel's owner or operator. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction for concealment of bankruptcy estate assets valued at more than $942,000 under 28 U.S.C 2255, arguing that his court-appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The magistrate judge recommended granting relief but was overruled by the district court. Because defendant's indictment was timely, he could not show that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to research the applicable statute of limitations in advance of defendant's guilty plea; counsel did not fail to adequately investigate defendant's criminal case; and while counsel's performance was less than commendable where counsel did not recall looking at certain discovery documents or understanding what defendant was pleading guilty to, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by such deficient performance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation following conviction of a felony offense in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), and being an alien unlawfully present in the United States and in possession of a firearm previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2). The court agreed with its sister circuits and held that an unlawful reentry offense and a section 992(g) offense should not be grouped as they harm different societal interests. Because the offenses affected different societal interests, they have different "victims" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2(a). Since the offenses had different "victims," section 3D1.2(a) does not require their grouping. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's multiple-count adjustment. View "United States v. McLauling" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged her commitment to a mental health treatment facility within the federal prison system under 18 U.S.C. 4245. The court concluded that the Government's petition for a commitment hearing was authorized because appellant objected in writing to the purpose of her hospitalization. The court also concluded that, although there was some dispute as to whether treatment was necessary to address appellant's belligerence and aggression, there was clear and convincing evidence that psychiatric treatment was necessary to ensure that appellant's medical conditions could be properly treated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sealed Appellee 1 v. Sealed Appellant 1" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to give them "crime victim" status under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that petitioners have a right to file their own motion to be declared crime victims under the CVRA, and it is clear and indisputable that no time bar prevented the district court from considering the novel arguments raised by pro bono counsel in its motion below. Issuance of a writ is appropriate where, as here, petitioners raised arguments previously raised by the Government during the time the Government represented their interests, and where petitioners have been able to retain counsel. View "In re: Jewell Allen, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, tour guides, filed suit challenging the City's requirement that those conducting tours for hire in the city have a tour guide license. Plaintiffs claimed that the City's requirement violated their First Amendment rights and sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court concluded that the content-neutral requirement promoted the government's interest in requiring licensees to know the city and not be felons or drug addicts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City. View "Kagan, et al. v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law