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

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate her conviction. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether defendant's suppression motion would have been meritorious. The court vacated the COA and remanded for clarification as to whether defendant had made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and was entitled to a COA on that issue. View "United States v. Ratliff" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. The court held that it was error to rule that defendant's third degree aggravated assault conviction constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and apply the 16-level increase to the base offense level. The error was not harmless where the district court did not clearly state that it would impose the same sentence if there had not been a 16-level enhancement based on the prior crime of violence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Flores" on Justia Law

This diversity case involved a dispute over insurance coverage between Starr and SGS. The district court, relying on Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., held that Starr did not need to show prejudice before denying coverage to SGS for late notice under the pollution buy-back provision. Bound by Matador, which concluded that a notice requirement in this type of supplemental pollution endorsement was essential to the bargained-for coverage, the court affirmed the judgment and found SGS's arguments unpersuasive. View "Starr Indemnity & Liablity Co. v. SGS Petroleum Serv. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The district court subsequently granted defendant a certificate of appealability (COA) regarding his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective in not raising three Batson-related arguments on direct appeal. The court concluded that defendant failed to show that the state habeas court was unreasonable in rejecting his failure-to-investigate argument and it was well within the bounds of judicial determination for the state court to conclude that appellate counsel could follow a strategy that did not require raising the Batson arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment denying habeas relief, concluding that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in rejecting the claim. View "Higgins v. Cain" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of an allision between a vessel owned by Settoon and an oil well. On appeal, Settoon challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the umbrella insurers. The court concluded that the umbrella insurers were not liable for damages resulting from the allision because Settoon failed to provide them notice within 30 days; SNIC was liable to Settoon because delayed delivery prevented SNIC from relying on the exclusions in the policy and the conditions precedent of the exceptions to the exclusions; and prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date Settoon paid for the allision. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for calculation of prejudgment interest and affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "In Re: Settoon Towing, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Radmax petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to transfer this case from the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas to the Tyler Division of that district. The court concluded that, under In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., the facts and circumstances of this case were wholly grounded in the transferee forum (the Tyler Division), which was a clearly more convenient venue, and this case had no connection to the Marshall Division. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for stay of proceedings in the district court. View "In re: Radmax, Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, IMM, claiming that he was entitled to minimum-wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of IMM. The record indicated that plaintiff spent the vast majority of his time selling goods or performing work incidental to his sales. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff was more similar to an outside salesman than a deliveryman and, therefore, IMM was excused from paying him the wages that the statute would otherwise mandate. View "Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Marketing, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences related to the bribery of two public officials to procure a multimillion dollar contract. The court concluded that the district court participated in defendant's plea negotiations in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and the district court's error was plain in light of the court's well-settled circuit law prohibiting a court's participation in plea negotiations. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's guilty pleas and sentences, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

IEC-Houston petitioned for review of two of the Board's orders stemming from unfair labor practice charges against IEC-Houston and others. The charges stemmed from allegations that IEC-Houston's member employment-assistance programs discriminated against the hiring of union members and "salts" in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3). Concluding that the court had jurisdiction, the court granted IEC-Houston's petition for review and denied the Board's cross-petition for enforcement where IEC-Houston was deprived of due process of law because it was charged and tried under Section 8(a)(3), while each Board panel rejected the ALJ's finding of liability under Section 8(a)(3), and instead found violations of Section 8(a)(1) under a novel theory of liability. The Board's change of liability theories on appeal was error and it was not harmless error. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of the Board's novel Section 8(a)(1) theory of liability. View "Correct Electrical, Inc., et al. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

After the district court denied petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, he sought a certificate of appealability (COA) pursuant to section 2253(c)(2). The court concluded that petitioner's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and rejected petitioner's claims under Strickland v. Washington; petitioner's allegations, under Brady v. Maryland, that the State suppressed favorable statements it obtained in investigating his case were rejected by the court; and, assuming the prosecutor's statements regarding excluded evidence were improper, they did not substantially affect petitioner's right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the court concluded that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's conclusions and denied the COA application. View "Trottie v. Stephens" on Justia Law