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

Defendant appealed his sentence of 24 months imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release for violating conditions of an earlier sentence of supervised release. Defendant argued that the district court improperly considered his rehabilitative needs in sentencing him. The court concluded that, in this case, although the district court certainly took rehabilitation into account, it was at most a secondary concern or additional justification for the sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in imposing defendant's sentence and the court affirmed. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of illegal reentry. The district court applied a 16-level enhancement based on its determination that defendant had committed a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant acknowledged that he was convicted under section 3-307(a)(3) of Maryland's criminal code. The court concluded that a violation of section 307(a)(3) constituted sexual abuse of a minor under the plain-meaning approach and was a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chacon" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner was granted asylum and was subsequently ordered removed on account of his criminal convictions. Because the court held that the plain language of Section 209(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1159(b), did not require an alien to maintain asylum status to be eligible for an adjustment of status, the court granted the petition for review on that issue and vacated the order of removal. The court did not review petitioner's request for relief under the Convention Against Torture because the court was bound by its precedent holding that the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252, divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction to do so. View "Siwe v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

CULS appealed the dismissal of its petition for involuntary bankruptcy filed against Green Hills under 11 U.S.C. 303. Congress has made clear that a claimholder did not have standing to file an involuntary petition if there was a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount of the claim. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal on the alternative ground that CULS lacked standing to bring the involuntary petition where CULS' claim was subject to a bona fide dispute. The court denied Green Hills' motion for sanctioning CULS for filing a frivolous appeal and concluded that sanctions were not appropriate in this case where CULS' contentions, while not ultimately meritorious, were not entirely unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal, granted CULS' motion for judicial notice of an order denying in part another motion by CULS for summary judgment, and denied Green Hills' motion for sanctions. View "Credit Union Liquidity Servs. v. Green Hills Dev. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose from the collapse of a real estate transaction. The ART entities filed suit alleging that Clapper defrauded them by representing that "there was no title problems," and seeking a declaratory judgment that they "properly terminated" the deal. The Clapper entities countersued, alleging that the ART entities breached the agreement by purporting to terminate the deal. In this appeal, the court held that the ART entities' decision not to cross-appeal the jury's fraud findings in the first district proceeding prevented them from raising the same rejected fraud claims in the second district court proceeding. Because the contribution amounts overlap, and because the parties neither identified language in the agreement nor an explanation from the district court supporting this double counting of damages, the court held that the district court's decision to combine the amounts was in error. Accordingly, the court vacated the award of combined contribution amounts and remanded for further proceedings. The court addressed remaining claims and affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "American Midwest, Inc., et al. v. Clapper, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after deportation. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that the issue was encompassed within defendant's appeal waiver. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal because defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging, inter alia, that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her race. The court concluded that the evidence did not support a hostile work environment claim and Denton County was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; because plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss on her failure to promote claim, the district court did not err by denying discovery and dismissing the suit against the Individual Defendants; and, therefore, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Williams-Boldware v. Denton County Texas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, detainees, filed Bivens claims against defendant, a border officer, for violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs were detained as excluded aliens for varying amounts of time and neither of the claims involved physical abuse. Therefore, the claims fell within the confines of entry fiction, and the Fourth Amendment was inapplicable; the detention did not violate constitutional rights; and the district court properly dismissed these claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Even if plaintiffs were in fact U.S. citizens, dismissal was proper because defendant enjoyed qualified immunity where plaintiffs pointed to no authority clearly establishing that defendant's actions in detaining, even for as long as ten hours, individuals who presented facially valid documentation, plus the use of unspecified threats and insults during interrogation, violated the Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Castro, et al. v. Cabrera" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's final order of removal. As a preliminary matter, the court could not consider petitioner's affidavit and the response of his former counsel to petitioner's complaint because that evidence was not presented to the BIA. The court held that, through counsel, petitioner clearly waived his right to appeal at the conclusion of the proceedings before the IJ. Although petitioner contended that his waiver was involuntary based upon the ineffectiveness of counsel, petitioner failed to show that he met the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's dismissal of the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. View "Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged a new method the Attorney General and the Board used to determine that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of admissibility under section 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1100 et seq. The court agreed with four of its sister circuits and concluded that the "convicted of" clause of section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) was not ambiguous. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument that "convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude" was ambiguous and concluded that Congress had spoken directly to the issue. Consequently, the court found no analogous permission to abandon the categorical approach and look beyond the conviction record. In this instance, the court found that the BIA looked beyond the conviction record to conclude that petitioner had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the court's precedent did not permit such an inquiry, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Trevino v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law