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

The Parishes filed suit against BP and others involved in the "Deepwater Horizon" oil spill, seeking to recover penalties under The Louisiana Wildlife Protection Statute, La. R.S. 56:40:1. On appeal, the Parishes challenged the denial of its motion to remand to state court and dismissal of its claims as preempted by federal law. The court concluded that the state law claims were removable pursuant to the broad jurisdictional grant of section 1349 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1349. The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the Parishes' claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, as interpreted in International Paper Co v. Ouellette, and that Congress did not reject that interpretation explicitly or by negative implication in the CWA or when it passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2718(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Three children who are natives of Mexico appealed the district court's finding under the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, that they were being wrongfully retained in the United States and should be returned to their mother. While the appeal was pending, USCIS granted the children asylum. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the children, who are not parties, have standing to appeal where their well-being was at stake. On the merits, the court concluded that no jurisdictional defect arose from the fact that the director of child and family services was not the actual physical custodian of the children; the absence of ORR as a party was not a meaningful defect; and the Hague Convention was a proper mechanism for the recovery of the children. Accordingly, the district court did not lack jurisdiction to enter the order that the children be returned to their mother. Because the children's fundamental interests are at stake in the district court proceedings and no respondent is making an effort to represent those interests, the court remanded to the district court to appoint the children a guardian ad litem. The district court did not clearly err by failing to account for the mostly retrospective harm allegedly suffered by the children, or the conclusions of the psychologist, which were based on the children's belief that the same conditions would be present upon their return. Finally, the court concluded that an asylum grant did not remove from the district court authority to make controlling findings on the potential harm to the child. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Sanchez v. R.G.L." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence after being convicted of two theft offenses involving Government property with a value less than $1,000, contending that 18 U.S.C. 641 did not permit her to be convicted of more than a single felony count. Defendant obtained postal stamps at United States Postal Offices in various locations, tendering checks with insufficient funds as payment in these transactions. The court concluded that defendant's interpretation of the statute reflected the plain language of section 641. Even if the court were unconvinced that defendant's view was the correct one, the court would be bound under the rule of lenity to adopt the position favoring defendant. Accordingly, the court held that defendant was properly subject to only a single felony count under section 641 and must be resentenced accordingly. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lagrone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a judgment giving collateral-estoppel effect, in his Federal Railway Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, suit, to a finding of fact made by a Public Law Board in the course of plaintiff's pursuit of his rights under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with BNSF. The court concluded that, because it was the railroad that conducted the investigation and hearing and terminated plaintiff, and because the Board only reviewed a close record, the procedures were not adequate for collateral estoppel to apply. The court rejected BNSF's election-of-remedies argument where plaintiff sought protection under the CBA for his contractual claims and the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 153, was not itself the source of law under which plaintiff sought protection. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Grimes v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought cancellation of removal but the IJ found that he was not statutorily eligible for the discretionary relief because of the "stop-time rule" in 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1). The court concluded that the plain reading of the provision supported the IJ's application of the stop-time rule where petitioner's conviction of aggravated assault of a family member triggered the rule and denied him eligibility for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court denied his petition for review. View "Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Relators filed suit against their former employers, alleging that defendants defrauded the Government by filing fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims. At issue was whether the district court properly held that, because there was no qui tam complaint in existence at the time the Government pursued criminal charges against defendants, the criminal proceeding did not constitute an "alternate remedy" under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5). The court held that because there was no qui tam action pending at the commencement of the restitution proceeding, the restitution proceeding did not constitute an alternate remedy under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of the Government and remanded for further proceedings. View "Babalola, et al. v. Sharma, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a complaint with OSHA, asserting that Saybolt and Core Labs had violated Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a), by retaliating against him for blowing the whistle on an alleged scheme to violate Colombian tax law. OSHA, an ALJ, and the Board all rejected petitioner's complaint. The court concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate that he engaged in protected conduct because he did not complain, based on a reasonable belief, that one of six enumerated categories of U.S. law had been violated. Petitioner had not demonstrated that he engaged in any protected activity, and given this, the court could not say that Core Labs knew that petitioner engaged in a protected activity that was a contributing factor in the unfavorable actions of withholding petitioner's pay raise and ultimately terminating him. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board's dismissal of petitioner's complaint because he had not demonstrated that his claim fell within the scope of section 806. View "Villanueva v. U.S. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. At issue was whether the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for distribution of child pornography. The court found that section 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) did not contain a scienter requirement. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement absent evidence of defendant's knowledge that the file-sharing program, Frostwire, enabled other users to access the child pornography he downloaded. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's determination that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. In 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to delivering cocaine in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1). Defendant's conviction under the Florida statue did not require that he knew that the substance at issue was a controlled substance whereas a conviction under the federal statute did. Therefore, the state offense was not analogous to the federal offense. Accordingly, the court held that the Florida offense was not categorically an aggravated felony and granted the petition for review, vacating the order and remanding for further proceedings. View "Sarmientos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

This appeal presented the final set of issues arising from claims of negligent construction of a condominium project in south Mississippi. The district court held that a subcontractor's Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurer breached its duty to defend the general contractor. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that there was a duty to defend where the CGL insurer was not on notice of a claim under the policy. Consequently, the remaining appellate issues concerning the calculation and allocation of the costs of the alleged failure to defend were moot. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Carl E. Woodward, L.L.C., et al. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of CT" on Justia Law