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

Defendant and his co-conspirators were indicted for, inter alia, conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered pursuant to the wiretaps on Target Telephones 3 and 4. The court found that the district court did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction and such non-compliance implicated a core concern of the statute and required suppression of the evidence obtained from the wiretap. The court also found that the government failed to comply with minimization protocols when monitoring defendant's May 16, 2009 phone call. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion and remanded for further proceedings View "United States v. North" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of murder-for-hire and sentenced to death. Petitioner subsequently sought a certificate of appealability after the district court denied him 28 U.S.C. 2254 relief. Defendant asserted a Wiggins claim for constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. The court believed that there was virtually no chance - let alone a "reasonable possibility" - that petitioner's new habeas evidence would have affected the sentencing outcome. The court concluded that, because there was no debatable issue on prejudice, the court need not reach the question of whether defendant's trial counsel's failure to introduce new habeas evidence at trial amounted to deficient representation. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a certificate of appealability. View "Ruiz v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2671-80, seeking compensatory damages for loss of property and personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence and malice of the VA. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the VA's motion to dismiss where the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), 38 U.S.C. 511, and in the alternative, the United States' sovereign immunity, barred the district court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. View "King v. US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, landowners, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., seeking damages from the government for its role in the design, construction, and maintenance of a portion of a highway that prevented sufficient drainage periods of heavy rainfall. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the district court erred when it declined to apply Louisiana's continuing-tort doctrine to delay commencement of the running of the FTCA's two-year limitations period. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not been aggrieved by a Louisiana continuing tort and have failed to bear their burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claim was time-barred. View "Young, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to transporting aliens within the United States for private financial gain. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, considered in connection with the Brignoni-Ponce factors, the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's truck. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garza" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner argued that the district court violated the due process requirements of Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman by refusing to provide constitutionally adequate funding for experts. The court concluded that petitioner's claim failed on the merits because Ford and Panetti merely established that petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to present his own expert testimony before a neutral decisionmaker. The fact that the court did not accede to all of petitioner's demands for additional funding could not be fairly characterized as an abuse of discretion. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in finding petitioner competent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment under Ford and Panetti, and that petitioner was not entitled to relief from his 1995 conviction under the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Indiana v. Edwards because Edwards was not retroactively applicable on collateral review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's second and third federal habeas petitions. View "Panetti v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint against Cardinal under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, based on an implied false certification of "merchantability" by Cardinal to the VA in connection with the sales of Cardinal's Signature Edition Infusion Device (Signature pump). In regards to plaintiff's implied false certification theory, plaintiff's new allegations that merchantability was a "standard condition," or material condition, of Cardinal's contract with the VA, or that the VA would not have paid for the Signature pumps had it known of the defect, were deficient under Rule 9(b). In regards to plaintiff's claim that the Signature pumps were worthless goods, plaintiff failed to allege that any Signature pump sold to the VA over nine years was ever found to be deficient or worthless; failed to allege that any patient was harmed due to the use of the Signature pump at a VA hospital; and that the VA was ever sued due to injury caused by a malfunctioning pump. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to plead her claims with sufficient particularity and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "United States, ex rel. Leslie Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their conviction for conspiracy to possess illicit substances aboard an aircraft with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 963. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a plan to transport cocaine from South America to the United Kingdom on board commercial airplanes. The court concluded that Congress intended that the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy charge - possession with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 959(b) - applied extraterritorially; section 963 could be applied extraterritorially; under Blackmer v. United States, application of section 959(b) to Defendant Parker, a U.S. citizen, did not violate the Due Process Clause; extraterritorial application of section 959(b)(2) in this case was permissible as implementing Congress' treaty-making power under the Necessary and Proper Clause; and the recital of facts and the elements of conspiracy to commit the relevant offense was sufficient to enable defendants to prepare their defenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lawrence, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of six counts of aiding and abetting in bank fraud. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his participation in a scheme to fraudulently obtain funds by straw credit card purchases. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the government did not support with sufficient proof the essential financial-institution element of the bank-fraud counts charged in the indictment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (Count 1), attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States (Count 2), and four counts of possession of a weapon in furtherance of a federal crime of violence (Count 3-6). Defendant was arrested before he could carry out a plan to detonate a bomb and shoot service members stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found at the time of his arrest and statements that he made to police where, under all the circumstances, the stop was a proper investigatory detention and was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court also concluded that there was no clear or obvious error in defendant's conviction for multiple firearms offenses where the evidence allowed for the inference of two possessions and purposes for the firearm. Finally, the district court's denial of additional funds for defendant to hire an expert witness did not result in an unfair trial and the court found no error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Abdo" on Justia Law