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

Defendant pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in the United States after removal. On appeal, defendant challenged the application of a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for his having been removed following a conviction for a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence was greater than 13 months based upon defendant's 2002 Georgia conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that the district court misapplied section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because the Georgia conviction, which did not necessarily require remuneration, did not support the enhancement for a "drug trafficking offense." Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Lugo" on Justia Law

Kristy Sones worked as a nurse for LHC, a home-health company, until she was terminated shortly after she had an epileptic seizure. The EEOC brought an enforcement action on her behalf against LHC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment for LHC on all claims. The court affirmed summary judgment on the EEOC's failure-to-accommodate claim; affirmed partial summary judgment to the extent Sones was a Field Nurse because she was not qualified for that position; but concluded that there were genuine disputes of material fact remaining as to (1) whether Sones was promoted to Team Leader, (2) if so, whether LHC could reasonably accommodate her disability, (3) whether LHC engaged in the required interactive process to seek accommodation, and (4) whether Sones was terminated on account of her disability. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings as to these issues. View "EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employers, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants' hiring of undocumented workers resulted in the depression of their wages. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to establish RICO standing, as well as denied their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The court concluded that, without an allegation as to the proportion of undocumented workers within defendants' workforce, it is impossible to determine whether the hiring of undocumented workers could have had any plausible effect on overall wages. Further, if plaintiffs are alleging that defendants' hiring of illegal workers depressed wages throughout the industry, this theory is implausible too. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege proximate cause. Further, plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to establish that they suffered any injury, must less an injury under RICO. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice and denying plaintiffs leave to file the third amended complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Varela v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

The United States filed an in rem civil forfeiture complaint on the property, alleging that Carlos Alberto Oliva-Castillo was the true of owner of the property and that Oliva purchased the property with proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. Dr. Carlos Ricardo Tirado Tamez filed an answer and amended answer to the complaint claiming to be the owner of the property. Dr. Tirado and his wife are the claimants. On appeal, Dr. Tirado challenged the district court's default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Tirado's Venue Motion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that claimants had been properly served; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering discovery sanctions resulting in default judgment against Dr. Tirado. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. 200 Acres of Land Near FM 2686" on Justia Law

The Avakians purchased a house with a loan secured by a properly executed deed of trust. The property was their homestead, where they lived together. Citibank refinanced the loan. Unlike the original loan, the refinancing note only listed Norair as the debtor. Citibank required that the Avakians execute another deed of trust. Norair signed the Citibank deed of trust. The next day, Burnette signed an identical deed of trust. The deeds of trust did not mention each other, and did not refer to signature of counterpart documents. Citibank recorded them as separate instruments. The Avakians received a loan modification. Around the time of Norair’s death, Burnette received notice that Citibank was taking steps to foreclose. After Norair’s death, Burnette sought a declaratory judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Burnette, finding that, because the two were living together when they signed the Citibank deeds of trust, the instruments were invalid. The Fifth Circuit reversed. Under Mississippi law, a deed of trust on a homestead is void if it is not signed by both spouses, but the Mississippi Supreme Court would likely hold that a valid deed of trust is created when husband and wife contemporaneously sign separate, identical instruments. View "Avakian v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2006, Boyd sent his income and expense information for 2004 to a tax specialist, who prepared a return showing a tax liability of over $27,000. Boyd did not file the return he received from the tax specialist. Instead, Boyd filed his tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in October 2007, having recently read a book called Cracking the Code, which espoused a theory that federal income tax obligations applied only to individuals who earned income working for the federal government. The three returns declared that in those years he had zero income and zero tax liability. During those three years, Boyd actually had continued the work he had done in prior years and had earned income totaling $795,000. Convicted under 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), Boyd argued that the government had not proven willfulness because it failed to show the absence of a good-faith belief that the he did not have to file returns or pay taxes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to denial of funding for neuropsychologist testimony, admission of uncharged conduct, the prosecutor’s statements, the judge’s statements, the jury instructions, the response to a jury note, and the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

In 2002, the Mingos, married taxpayers, reported the sale of a partnership interest, including the portion of the proceeds attributable to the partnership’s unrealized receivables, through the installment method of accounting. In an action brought to determine their federal income tax liability, the tax court held that the Mingos were not entitled to utilize the installment method to report the unrealized receivables and that the IRS appropriately applied section 481(a) of the Internal Revenue Code in 2007 to adjust the Mingos’s 2003 joint income tax return to account for the unrealized receivables income that should have been reported in 2002. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the determination that the installment sale reporting of the unrealized receivables in 2002 did not clearly reflect Mrs. Mingo’s income and a challenge to the Commissioner’s authority to change her method of accounting in 2003, given that the allegedly erroneous reporting under the installment method occurred in 2002, the year of the sale. View "Mingo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Burnside, a sergeant for the Nueces County Sheriff’s Department, was assigned to the patrol division. Burnside also served as chairman of a law enforcement political action committee (PAC). In 2012, Sheriff Kaelin, up for re-election in a contested race, approached Burnside while Burnside was on duty and told him that the PAC should support Kaelin’s re-election bid. Burnside said that he would not treat Kaelin differently from any other candidate and that PAC members would vote on the endorsement. Kaelin told Burnside that Kaelin would move him to jail duty if the PAC did not support Kaelin’s candidacy. Kaelin knew that Burnside personally supported Kaelin’s opponent. That the PAC did not support Kaelin, was common knowledge. Three weeks after the PAC failed to endorse Kaelin, Kaelin transferred Burnside to the “extremely less desirable position” of jail duty. Burnside continued to work at the jail for a year. In 2013, his employment was terminated because of the dissemination of a recording containing Kaelin’s threat against another officer. Burnside sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Kaelin was denied the defense of qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reversed as to the termination claim and affirmed denial of qualified immunity as to the transfer claim. View "Burnside v. Nueces Cnty." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and twenty-three counts of securities fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of both conspiracy to commit securities fraud and those counts of his substantive securities fraud conviction for which the named victim did not testify. The court concluded that the district court did not commit harmless error in admitting the Government's Exhibit 115 where it is unclear whether the exhibit is a letter, memorandum, or email; to whom it was sent; or if it was ever sent at all. Although the facts surrounding defendant's statute of limitations defense are not in dispute, this does not change the court's conclusion that a rule requiring all defendants to affirmatively assert a limitations defense at trial to preserve it for appeal is preferable to a case-by-case determination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Sundown filed suit against defendants in state and federal court seeking a partition of land they co-owned, return of rental payments, and a right of way over Defendant Haller's property. In appeal No. 13-30294, Sundown challenges the district court's interpretation of the settlement agreement. In appeal No. 13-30721, Sundown challenges the district court's enforcement of the settlement. In appeal No. 13-30748, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion for contempt. The court held that the district court erred when it interpreted the settlement agreement to include those items not mentioned during the parties' oral recitation of the settlement agreement; the district court abused its discretion when it enforced the settlement agreement; and defendants failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in its factual findings in regards to the denial of the motion for contempt. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Sundown Energy v. Haller" on Justia Law