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

A jury found that PlastiPure and CertiChem violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), by making false statements of facts about Eastman's plastic resin product called Tritan. The district court entered an injunction against both companies and the companies appealed, challenging the jury verdict and the injunction. The court held that the Act prohibits false commercial speech even when that speech makes scientific claims. The court rejected the companies' contention that the district court should not have entered its injunction because the companies' statements about Tritan containing estrogenic activity (EA) from BPA are not actionable statements under the Act. The court concluded that application of the Act to the companies’ promotional statements will not stifle academic freedom or intrude on First Amendment values; the injunction only applies to statements made “in connection with any advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of goods or services;" the companies may continue to pursue their research and publish their results; and the companies may not push their product by making the claims the jury found to be false and misleading. The court rejected the companies' argument that the jury's verdict must be reversed where a reasonable jury could have concluded that the companies' statements were false and misleading. The court rejected the companies' claims of error in the jury instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Eastman Chemical Co. v. PlastiPure, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to reentry of a deported alien, arguing that his prior Florida conviction for aggravated battery is not a crime of violence, and that collateral estoppel should have precluded the government from asserting the enhancement because a judge presiding over his earlier reentry case declined to apply it. The court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court committed an error that was clear or obvious where there was an inadequate district court record on which to evaluate collateral estoppel and an absence of case law unequivocally supporting its application in this context. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not err by applying the crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Ceron" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty for being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation and subsequently appealed his sentence of 24 months imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Because the court held that the district court properly applied a departure under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt.n.7, the court did not consider defendant's arguments regarding the district court's alternative basis for the sentence it imposed. View "United States v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from litigation regarding the ownership of the composition copyright to the song Whoomp! (There It Is), writen and produced by Tag Team. The district court concluded that plaintiff owned the copyright and DM Records was liable for copyright infringement, and the jury awarded $2 million in damages. DM Records appealed on several grounds. In regards to DM Record's arguments related to the district court's interpretation of the Recording Agreement as assigning a single fifty percent interest to Alvert Music, the court concluded that none of the pieces of allegedly conflicting evidence cited by DM Records presents a factual issue, and Bellmark Records waived its right to bring a Rule 50(b) motion by not raising its second argument at trial. In regards to DM Records' challenge to the district court's denial of its Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud and lack of standing, DM Records is not entitled to Rule 60(b) relief on the basis of the allegedly withheld Security Agreement because standing is determined at the time of suit and the 2006 Security Agreement does not establish that plaintiff did not own the copyright in 2002 when he commenced the suit. The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury and that the jury could have determined that plaintiff was properly awarded 100 percent of the royalties from which it could pay Tag Team its share. Finally, it was not plain error for the district court to allow plaintiff's closing statement and not to grant DM's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Isbell v. DM Records, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs participated in the Occupy Wall Street protests in front of Austin City Hall. The City then started a policy under which it issued criminal-trespass notices to plaintiffs and other protestors. Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, alleging facial and as-appliec challenges to the policy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. After bench trial, the district court entered an order declaring the policy unconstitutional on its face and enjoined the City from issuing the notices. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and plaintiffs appealed. The court reversed the denial of fees because plaintiffs were the prevailing party on their constitutional challenge. The district court abused its discretion when it relied on limited injury and limited success as special circumstances justifying a wholesale denial of fees. Even accepting the district court's consideration of the limited injury and limited scope of the injunction as special circumstances, the district court's factual support for those points is unsupported by record evidence. The court remanded for the district court to determine the amount of the award. View "Sanchez v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various prison officials, alleging a procedural due process claim arising out of his 39 years of continuous incarceration in solitary confinement. Prison officials appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that, given the extraordinarily lengthy detention and the isolating, restrictive conditions that the district court considered in this instance, there is no basis for concluding that prison officials may avoid the established constitutional rights of prisoners by transferring them to a new facility and wiping the slate clean, while continuing all of the conditions that the prisoner has challenged; no reasonable prison official could conclude that continuing four decades in indefinite solitary confinement would not implicate a liberty interest protected by due process; and, having found a clearly established liberty interest, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. View "Wilkerson v. Stalder" on Justia Law

In 2013, Vigil pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to illegal re-entry into the United States. A pre-sentence calculated a base offense level of 8. The PSR then applied a 16-level enhancement, finding that a previous conviction for sexual battery under Louisiana Revised Statute § 14.43.1 constituted a "crime of violence" under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). After a 2-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Vigil's total offense level was 22. Combined with a Criminal History Category of II, the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months imprisonment. Vigil objected that the government had not presented competent evidence to support the 16-level enhancement and that even if properly supported, the Louisiana conviction was not a "crime of violence." The district court applied the 16-level enhancement required by the Guidelines when there has been a prior conviction for a crime of violence. After granting the Government's motion for an additional 1-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months imprisonment and sentenced Vigil to 41 months. The Fifth Circuit affirmed imposition of the enhancement. View "United States v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a high school student and his mother, filed suit against defendants for violation of the student's freedom of speech under the First Amendment and the mother's substantive due process right to parental authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs' complaint stemmed from the student's suspension and transfer to an alternative school for his posting of a rap song on his Facebook page and on YouTube that criticized and named two male athletic coaches at his school for sexually harassing female students. The court concluded that, even assuming arguendo the School Board could invoke Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in this case, it would not afford the School Board a defense for its violation of the student's First Amendment rights because the evidence does not support a finding, as would be required by Tinker, that the student's song either substantially disrupted the school's work or discipline or that the school officials reasonably could have forecasted such a disruption. In the alternative, the court concluded that the student's song did not gravely and uniquely threaten violence to the school population such to justify discipline pursuant to the court's narrow holding in Ponce v. Socorro Independent School District that student speech that threatened a Columbine-style attack on a school was not protected by the First Amendment. In this case, the student's speech did not constitute a true threat as evidenced by, inter alia, its public broadcast as a rap song, its conditional nature, and the reactions of its listeners. The district court reversed in part and rendered in favor of the student against the School Board on the First Amendment claim; remanded and directed the district court to award the student nominal damages, court costs, appropriate attorneys' fees, and an injunction ordering the School Board to expunge all references to the incident at issue from the student's school records. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Defendants Tisdale, Jones, and Beacham appealed their convictions for various counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, and bank fraud for their involvement in a fraudulent real estate scheme. Tisdale and Beacham also appealed their sentences. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of the charges. However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by using the original loan amounts to calculate restitution for the victims and the restitution order must be vacated. It is unclear whether the district court weighed the restitution awards in the balance when deciding Tisdale's, Jones's, and Beacham's prison terms. The district court did not state whether the imposition of restitution resulted in a modification of the prison sentences or its decision not to impose penal fines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Beacham" on Justia Law

Defendants Collins and Robison appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to defraud insurance companies by filing false claims for automobile accidents that never happened. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Collins' conviction for conspiracy to commit health care fraud; the court rejected defendants' claim that their conviction for mail fraud should be vacated under the concurrent sentence doctrine or on the merits; there was sufficient evidence to support the mail fraud convictions; the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 11011 et seq., does not preclude concurrent operation of the federal mail fraud statute; the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of conspiracy and corrupt persuasion and defendants' conviction for conspiracy to tamper with witnesses stands; and the court affirmed Collins' sentence. The court rejected defendants' numerous legal challenges and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law