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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review from the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from a removal order. At issue was whether petitioner's conviction for aiding or abetting improper entry under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(E)(i). The court concluded that the BIA's finding that the conviction documents associated with petitioner's section 1325(a) conviction established his removability under section 1227(a)(1)(E) was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied the petition for review. View "Santos-Sanchez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Debtor challenged the district court's determination that proceeds from the post-certification sale of an exempted homestead revert to the estate if not reinvested within six months. The "snapshot rule" of bankruptcy law holds that all exemptions are determined at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed, and that they do not change due to subsequent events. In re Zibman held that proceeds from the pre-petition of a sale of a Texas homestead are not permanently immune from bankruptcy creditors. Under the court's precedent, the sale of the homestead voided the homestead exemption and the failure to reinvest the proceeds within six months voided the proceeds exemption, regardless of whether the sale occurred pre- or post- petition. This interpretation of 11 U.S.C. 522(c) is in accordance with Texas law and the decisions of the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Viegelahn v. Frost" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. The court affirmed, concluding that defendant's statements before the magistrate judge provided a sufficient basis for the district court to find that close assistance of counsel was available to defendant. The court held, however, that when a Padilla claim was sufficiently presented during a motion to withdraw plea, both legally and factually, a district court erred in failing to address the claim. In this case, because the district court did not make factual findings on the Padilla claim specifically, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to address the merits of that claim. View "United States v. Urias-Marrufo" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a contracting dispute between MetroplexCore and Parsons, which contracted with the county to design, build, and operate a transit system. The court agreed that the summary judgment evidence did not present any genuine issue of material fact as to MetroplexCore's joint venture and quantum meruit claims, and MetroplexCore did not challenge the dismissal of its fraudulent misrepresentation claim on appeal. However, because the district court impermissibly resolved certain disputed questions of fact at the summary judgment stage, and because those facts, taken in a light most favorable to MetroplexCore would give rise to a claim to relief for promissory estoppel, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Metroplexcore, L.L.C. v. Perrin" on Justia Law

Montana Lance locked himself inside the school nurse's bathroom when he was in the fourth grade and took his own life. Montana's parents filed suit against the school district alleging, among other claims, that the school district violated Montana's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and discriminated against him because of his disabilities under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege genuine issues of fact regarding their discrimination claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and section 504. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege genuine issues of fact under three theories of section 1983 liability: a "special relationship" theory; a "state-created danger" theory; and a "caused-to-be subjected" theory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district. View "Estate of Montana Lance, et al. v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that the bonds that they invested in were an unsuitable investment for the Plans' funds and that defendant made multiple oral misrepresentations to plaintiffs in violation of his fiduciary duties. The district court ruled that there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether defendant was an ERISA fiduciary, but nonetheless granted summary judgment because defendant provided plaintiffs with written disclosures. The court concluded that defendant did not qualify as a fiduciary under ERISA subsection 1002(21)(A)(i) because he did not exercise discretionary authority or control over the investment at issue; subsection 1002(21)(A)(ii) because he did not receive a fee from the Plans in connection with the investment; and section 1002(21)(A)(iii) because it was inapplicable in this instance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Tiblier, et al. v. Dlabal, et al." on Justia Law

Amzak appealed the district court's summary judgment on its loan loss claims against its title insurance policy provider and related entities. The court concluded that Amzak failed to show that it suffered actual loss because of a failure of title and STL could not be held responsible for any harm suffered by Amzak. The court formalized the holding in First State Bank v. American Title and likewise rejected the guarantee rationale of Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and agreed with the district court's rejection of Amzak's argument that STL breached the title policy at the time of the loan because its mortgage was voidable at that time. The court also disposed of Amzak's negligence claim where STL's delay in making a complete filing of Amzak's mortgage was not a legal cause of Amzak's loss. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Amzak Capital Mgmt. v. Stewart Title" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for three murders, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Allegedly without consulting petitioner, his counsel decided not to file a timely appeal. Upon motion, the district court then vacated and reentered its judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), allowing petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days of the reentered judgment. In Case No. 13-70006, the Director appealed from the district court's grant of petitioner's motion to vacate and reenter judgment. In Case No. 13-70002, petitioner appealed the reentered judgment, requesting a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that petitioner was solely using a Rule 60(b) motion as a means of achieving an untimely appeal. Under Supreme Court precedent and the court's precedent, the district court lacked the power to circumvent the rules for timely appeals in the manner it did. The court vacated the order granting relief and reentered judgment. The March 2012 judgment is a "live" judgment as to which petitioner's appeal was, admittedly, untimely. Accordingly, the court granted the Director's motion to dismiss Case No. 13-70002 for want of jurisdiction. The court vacated Case No. 13-70006. View "Perez v. Stephens" on Justia Law

After defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender and to meet with his counselor, defendant was sentenced to a prison term plus an additional period of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not explaining how Special Condition No. 6, which prohibited defendant from possessing, using, or purchasing sexually stimulating or oriented materials, was reasonably related to the statutory factors. Moreover, the court concluded that it was an abuse of discretion to conclude that this condition was reasonably related to the sentencing factors. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of methamphetamine-related offenses, appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in assessing two criminal history points for defendant's prior Colorado sentence. Defendant argued that his prior sentence could not have been a prior sentence of imprisonment of at least 60 days under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(b). The court concluded that defendant's prior sentence was not suspended in full and the non-suspended portion exceeded 60 days. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law