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

Defendant was convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Article 120, sodomy of a child under 12 years old, and Article 134, indecency with a child under 16 years old. At issue was whether the Attorney General's "interim rule" of February 28, 2007, which required pre-enactment sex offenders to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911 et seq., was a "valid" promulgation. The court answered in the affirmative and concluded that United States v. Johnson was controlling. Johnson compelled the court to conclude that SORNA became effective as to defendant on February 28, 2007, the date that the Attorney General issued his interim rules specifying SORNA's applicability to pre-enactment sex offenders, and defendant's failure to update his registration continued until after that date. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment finding him guilty of failing to update his registration under 18 U.S.C. 2250(a).View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the Texas PUC's interpretation and implementation of a federal statutory and regulatory scheme governing the purchase of energy between public utilities and certain energy production facilities known as Qualifying Facilities. Exelon, qualifying wind generation facilities, challenged a state rule and order which prohibited it from forming Legally Enforceable Obligations when selling power. The court vacated the portion of the judgment regarding Exelon's challenge to the PUC's order and directed the district court to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reversed as to the remaining challenges to the rule and remanded because PUC acted within its discretion and properly implemented the federal regulation at issue.View "Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C., et al. v. Nelson, et al." on Justia Law

Vantage appealed three orders from the district court and two orders from the bankruptcy court entered during the course of the Chapter 11 proceedings of twenty-one shipping companies. The orders' combined effect was to place certain shares of Vantage stock in custodia legis with the clerk of the court. The court concluded that the appeals are not moot, that the Vantage Shares are not "property of the estate," and that the Vantage Litigation is not "related to" the bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, the district court and the bankruptcy court had no subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the orders and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The court denied debtors' Motion to Dismiss Appeals.View "Vantage Drilling Co. v. TMT Procurement Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Vasquez and Echeverria appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the considerable evidence demonstrated that Echeverria knowingly agreed and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy; Echeverria's sentence was substantively reasonable; the district court did not commit plain error and Vasquez's Burton v. United States claim, that his conviction violates the Confrontation Clause, was rejected by the court; and Vasquez's remaining arguments failed to identify any reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, for racial discrimination. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege an adverse employment action under Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that, viewing the factual allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff plausibly alleged that he was subject to the equivalent of a demotion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Thompson v. City of Waco, TX" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) from the district court on eight claims related to the ineffective assistance of counsel; petitioner's right to be present at trial; a Massiah claim; Giglio/Napue claim and Brady claim; cumulative errors; jurors lying about their criminal backgrounds; jury communication with the court and bailiff outside of petitioner's and his counsel's presence; and shackling during the punishment phase. The court held that petitioner has established cause to excuse the procedural default of his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing where counsel's performance was deficient because he failed to conduct a mitigation investigation. The court remanded this claim for the district court to consider whether petitioner can prove prejudice. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court as to the other claims.View "Canales, Jr. v. Thaler" on Justia Law

The trustee sought to avoid the pre-bankruptcy transfer of $18,529.64 to creditor as a preferential transfer made within 90 days prior to debtor's filing for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court and the district court concluded that the transfer was indeed a preferential transfer avoidable by the trustee. Because the transfer of the bank account occurred less than 90 days before debtor filed for bankruptcy and because the transfer met all the other requirements of a preferential trade, the court agreed that the transfer was avoidable by the trustee. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Flooring Sys., Inc. v. Chow" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's award of damages in a medical malpractice suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., contending that the district court should have applied the Texas periodic payment statutory scheme, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 74.501-507. The court agreed, vacating the district court's judgment insofar as it failed to fashion a damages award similar to that contemplated by the Texas periodic payment statutory scheme and awarded post-judgment interest not in compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1304(b)(1)(A). The court remanded for further proceedings.View "Lee, Sr., et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive use of force from the shooting and death of Israel Leija, Jr. by a DPS trooper. The district court denied the trooper's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because multiple genuine disputes of material fact existed as to the qualified immunity analysis. The court concluded that whether Leija was posing a substantial and immediate risk of danger to other officers or bystanders, sufficient to justify the use of deadly force at the time of the shooting, is a disputed fact. Because on this record, the immediacy of the risk posed by Leija cannot be resolved as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Luna, et al. v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Drillers filed a mineral lien on Debtor's well after Drillers performed work on the well and were never paid. The bankruptcy court dismissed Drillers' constructive trust and equitable lien claims and granted summary judgment to Debtors on Drillers' mineral contractor's and subcontractor's lien claims. The district court affirmed. The court affirmed the dismissal of Drillers' constructive trust and equitable lien claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment on Drillers' mineral subcontractors' lien claims because Drillers submitted sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. The court held that it is possible under Texas law for an owner to also be a contractor, and for a laborer to secure liens against both the contracting and non-contracting owners. Viewed in the light most favorable to Drillers, the facts demonstrate that Drillers were subcontractors with regard to Debtors.View "Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P, et al. v. Heritage Consolidated, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law