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

Plaintiff sued Brink, and others, claiming that he was raped while in jail when he was nineteen years old and that the rape occurred as a result of ineffective locks on cell doors. Brink argued on interlocutory appeal that the district court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations began running against plaintiff at the moment the torts occurred. The court concluded that the Mississippi Code clearly distinguished between the concepts of emancipation and the disability of infancy, as well as the implications of each, and Mississippi cases did not illustrate an intent to deviate from this clear distinction. Therefore, the court held that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against plaintiff until he reached the age of majority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Baker v. RR Brink Locking Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a refugee from Vietnam who spoke no English, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion where he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to consult with him about filing a direct appeal of his sentence. After his wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor, defendant, who had no criminal record, was convicted of growing over seven hundred marijuana plants in order to raise money to pay for his wife's medical treatment. When sentenced, defendant was visibly upset at receiving a prison sentence instead of probation, saying that a prison sentence would kill his wife, who relied on his care; and, while his wife cried nearby, defendant spoke with counsel regarding his concern about getting 60 months and desire to do something to get less time. The court concluded that defendant reasonably expressed an interest in an appeal immediately after he was sentenced and this triggered counsel's duty to consult. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pham" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The court denied petitioner's request for equitable tolling where no extraordinary circumstances stood in the way of him filing a timely petition and where the La. Supreme Court did not adjudicate petitioner's motion on its merits and his petition would not have been timely under AEDPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sutton v. Cain" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the IRS's determination that the gross income petitioners reported in 2003 and 2004 based on their ownership of a controlled foreign corporation should have been taxed at the rate of petitioners' ordinary income rather than the lower tax rate they had claimed. At issue was whether amounts included in petitioners' gross income for 2003 and 2004 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 951(a)(1)(B) and 956 (collectively, "section 951 inclusions") constituted qualified dividend income under 26 U.S.C. 1(h)(11). The court concluded that section 951 inclusions did not constitute actual dividends because actual dividends required a distribution by a corporation and receipt by a shareholder and these section 951 inclusions involved no distribution or change in ownership; Congress clearly did not intend to deem as dividends the section 951 inclusions at issue here; and petitioners' reliance on other non-binding sources were unavailing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the tax court. View "Rodriguez, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute involving a Master Services Agreement (MSA) between BHP and Deep Marine. At issue on appeal was whether Underwriters could enforce BHP's contractual insurance, defense, and indemnity obligations to Deep Marine after Deep Marine's bankruptcy discharge. The court concluded that, even assuming arguendo that the MSA required indemnification against liability and that Deep Marine will eventually be held liable, Underwriters still could not prevail because BHP's indemnification obligation runs only to Deep Marine; Deep Marine would not, and could not, incur any loss in the Duval action, so Underwriters could not seek indemnification from BHP; because BHP had agreed to continue providing Deep Marine with a nominal defense, Underwriters would not have a breach of contract claim against BHP; the additional insured and primary insurance requirements do not apply BHP's self-insurance; BHP's only obligation was an indemnification obligation to Deep Marine; unlike Underwriters, it had no secondary liability to injured tort victims, like Duval; and Duval had no claim against BHP and, therefore, tender under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c) was improper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Duval v. Northern Assurance Co." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed suit against Conoco for breach of the Offer Letter and breach of its obligations under a severance plan (the Plan). The court concluded that plaintiff waived any challenge to the Trustee's application of the common law presumption of integration or Texas's parol evidence rule; plaintiff's arguments regarding his change in title were unpersuasive; plaintiff's "at will" employment argument relied on outdated and out-of-context Texas authority and was unpersuasive; the waiver was not invalid and unenforceable on account of fraud in the inducement; plaintiff ratified an alleged fraud, thereby preserving the validity and enforceability of the waiver regardless by submitting a claim to Conoco Human Resources but then continuing to work at Conoco; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), civil enforcement provision "completely preempts" plaintiff's state law claims against Conoco and the district court did not err by denying plaintiff's first motion for remand; the district court correctly denied plaintiff's renewed motion for remand; plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorneys' fees; and plaintiff waived his claim for breach of the Offer Letter, pertaining to a substantial reduction in his post-merger job position and responsibilities, for failure to plead with specificity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff. View "Clayton v. ConocoPhillips Co., et al" on Justia Law

This case arose when the FDIC filed a complaint against appellants for sums due under various promissory notes. Appellants then entered into a Stipulated Judgment in favor of FDIC and against appellants. CadleRock moved ex parte to re-open the case to allow it to file the necessary pleadings to revive the Stipulated Judgment and the district court granted the motion. CadleRock then filed an ex parte motion to revive the Stipulated Judgment (Revived Judgment) as it pertained to appellants and the district court granted the motion. Five years later, CadleRock commenced collection and served appellants with pleadings and appellants moved to vacate and annul. At issue on appeal was the district court's order denying appellants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion to vacate. The court concluded that the Revived Judgment was not void under Rule 60(b)(4); appellants' due process challenges failed; and, given that appellants have not shown an actual conflict between federal and state law, their preemption claim failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "FDIC v. SLE, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 250 grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in connection with a traffic stop. The court vacated the conviction and sentence, concluding that defendant limited his consent to a search of his luggage only and the officer's prolonged, more extensive search of defendant's entire vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment right. Therefore, the drugs found during the search of the vehicle and the incriminating statements made shortly thereafter must be suppressed as fruits of the unlawful search. View "United States v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from their participation in a wide-ranging mortgage fraud scheme. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred in including the amount of loss from the Appalachian transaction in Defendant Andrews' mandatory restitution order. Accordingly, the court affirmed Andrews' conviction but vacated the forfeiture and restitution component of his sentence. On remand, the district court should limit Andrews' restitution order to the amount of loss suffered as a result of the Creek Bend transaction, excluding any proceeds associated with the Appalachian transaction. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences as to the remaining defendants. View "United States v. Mason" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction of charges related to his involvement in a street gang that trafficked large amounts of cocaine powder and base. Defendant claimed that the Government agreed in an e-mail exchange that it would not seek a leader/organizer enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) and that the Government breached the plea agreement by supporting the enhancement recommendation in the presentence report. The court held that the Government did not breach the plea agreement; defendant's claim that the e-mail exchange at issue was part of the plea agreement because it reasonably induced him to plead guilty was unavailing; defendant did not identify, nor has the court discovered, any case in which a court looked beyond a cover letter attached to a plea agreement; and defendant's reliance on the e-mail exchange would be unreasonable in light of the plea agreement's merger clause stating that the written plea agreement constituted the complete agreement among the parties involved. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law