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

Defendants Simpson and Shafer appealed their sentences and convictions for participation in a wire and mail fraud conspiracy in the telecommunications industry. The court affirmed Simpsons' convictions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting the transmission of spam, and obstruction of justice; reversed Simpson's conviction for false registration of a domain name where there was no evidence showing that camophone.com was used in the course of the conspiracy; vacated and remanded Simpson's sentence; and affirmed Shafer's conviction and sentence for conspiracy. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), a program administered by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), that grants inmates certain privileges if they participate in the program by paying off court-ordered financial obligations. Petitioner argued that his placement into IFRP "refuse" status violated his First Amendment rights because he could not make the minimum payment under the IFRP and pursue his various claims and appeals in the judicial system. The court concluded that this argument failed because petitioner could not demonstrate an actual injury. Because the IFRP was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, it does not violate petitioner's equal protection rights. Finally, the court found that the imposition of the "refuse" conditions in 28 C.F.R. 545.11(d) did not violate an inmate's liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. View "Driggers v. Cruz, et al." on Justia Law

Attorneys appealed, and the City cross-appealed, the district court's determination of the fees owed by the City to Attorneys for representing the City. Although the court applied slightly different reasoning that the district court in determining that the Attorneys' contingency contract was unenforceable, the court affirmed the district court's quantum meruit award of $1.3 million to Attorney Davidson; Davidson could not recover the contracted-for contingency fee where there was only partial performance of a joint, indivisible obligation before default; and the district court's quantum meruit award was proper and reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "City of Alexandria v. Cleco Corp., et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals arose from a title insurance coverage dispute between the insured, Doubletree, and its insurance company, Lawyers Title. The court held that the magistrate judge correctly reformed the policy; the reformed policy covered survey errors in identifying the location of the flowage easement; the court rejected the magistrate judge's interpretation of the reformed policy and remanded; the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Lawyers Title as to Doubletree's extracontractual claims; and the magistrate judge abused his discretion in awarding fees to Lawyers' Title under 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the court reversed the award. View "Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P." on Justia Law

The United States appealed a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal following defendant's conviction for knowing possession of child pornography. The court reversed, concluding that, after reviewing the record under the applicable standard, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in knowing possession of child pornography at the time the files at issue were downloaded. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for offenses stemming from their involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants; the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over Tori Aldridge's wire fraud counts and her contention that venue was improper was waived; the admission of certain files at issue were harmless error in light of the other evidence in the record of the fraud; there was no plain error in the prosecutor's use of a dormant guarantee file and the prosecutor's misstatement regarding disbursement of loan proceeds; and the court rejected defendants' remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Isgar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt of child pornography. Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, he was bound by the obligations of the plea agreement; defendant's fifteen-year mandatory minimum claim fell within the waiver provision and was waived on appeal; and defendant's conditions-of-supervised-release arguments fell within the appeal waiver and were waived on appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Higgins" on Justia Law

Defendants Arthur and Andre appealed their convictions for drug and firearm offenses. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Arthur's and Andre's convictions for conspiracy; the evidence was sufficient to support the possession convictions; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c); the district court did not plainly err in failing to give a jury instruction to disregard the offenses Arthur committed as a minor; the calculation of Arthur's Guidelines range was not erroneous; Arthur's and Andre's sentences were substantively reasonable; the district court did not plainly err in admitting the bulk of an ATF agent's testimony; and Andre's allegation of a Fourth Amendment violation was unreviewable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability on his claims of actual innocence; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; ineffective assistance of habeas counsel; appellate counsel's conflict of interest; Brady violations; and violations of his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's conclusion. View "Reed v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code 501.063, which provides that inmates must pay a $100 annual health are service fee when they receive medical treatment in the prison system. After affirming the dismissal of Governor Perry because he was not a proper defendant, the court turned to the merits of the case. The court concluded that the complaint did not state sufficient facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim under the theory that defendant was denied medical care or that the fee required him to decide between obtaining medical care or basic necessities; plaintiff's due process claims failed where the notice provided was constitutionally adequate and the discrepancy between the posted notice and the statute did not render the notice inadequate; plaintiff failed to show that the taking of funds from his inmate trust fund account to pay for his medical care was unreasonable in light of the goal of controlling the prison budget and, therefore, plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment failed; and plaintiff waived his ex post facto claim, as well as his other miscellaneous claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Morris v. Livingston" on Justia Law