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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Bromac, dismissing her claims under the Jury System Improvement Act (JSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1875. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the district court misapplied the but-for causation standard by holding that she had to prove that her jury service was the only reason for her termination where the district court did not err in its analysis under the but-for causation standard. Even accepting plaintiff's version of the facts, she failed to create a genuine dispute that Bromac terminated her by reason of her jury service, or that their stated reason for terminating her was merely a pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bromac. View "Rogers v. Bromac Title Services, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to knowing possession of child pornography but reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress a series of confessions given to border patrol agents. The court held that when presented with a delay outside of the safe harbor, a district court must apply the McNabb-Mallory doctrine to determine whether the delay in bringing a suspect before a magistrate was reasonable. In this instance, the court concluded that the totality of the circumstances showed that defendant's statements were voluntary even though he was not presented to a magistrate judge until two days after his detainment. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's 9 p.m. confession did not violate his Miranda rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Boche-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without prejudice and therefore properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the second indictment; the court rejected defendant's claim that Count Two was either duplicitous or failed to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. 924; but the district court erred in holding that it did not matter whether defendant was served on the morning of trial with the second 21 U.S.C. 851(a) notice. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed on all counts. The court vacated the sentence on Count One and remanded for further proceedings on that count. View "United States v. Blevins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the school district, asserting claims of national origin discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the removal of his suit from Texas state court and the dismissal of his entire suit. The court held that removal was proper where plaintiff's complaint included claims under Title VII. However, because the district court gave no notice to plaintiff before its sua sponte dismissal of his state law discriminatory termination claim, the court vacated the dismissal of the claim and remanded. View "Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for causing a person under the age of 18 to engage in a commercial sex act, and aiding and abetting the promotion of prostitution. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; there was no plain error in the district court's jury instruction; defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor's statements at closing argument prejudiced his substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's motion for a new trial was time-barred; and the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for the use of a computer under U.S.S.G. 2G1.3(b)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Phea" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with, inter alia, four counts of creating and one count of distributing animal crush videos. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's dismissal of counts one through five. Congress revised 18 U.S.C. 48 to make it a crime to knowingly create, sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video. The district court concluded that section 48 was facially invalid. However, the court concluded that section 48 incorporates Miller v. California obscenity and thus by its terms proscribes only unprotected speech. The court rejected defendants' arguments under R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and held that Congress has a significant interest in preventing the secondary effects of animal crush videos, which promote and require violence and criminal activity. Furthermore, section 48 serves the government interest in a reasonably tailored way. Thus, section 48 is a permissible regulation of a subset of proscribable speech. The court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Richards, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their employer, CTS, alleging that they worked more than forty hours a week and that CTS wrongfully denied them overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the Motor Carrier Act (MCA), 49 U.S.C. 31502, exempted certain CTS employees from the overtime-pay requirements of the FLSA based, in part, on the percentage of safety-affecting interstate activities these employees engaged in company-wide. The court held that the company-wide analysis was appropriate in this case because this court's precedent effectively forecloses an employee-by-employee analysis, and the facts of this case, and arguments advanced by the parties, did not support a district-by-district analysis. View "Allen, et al. v. Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking statutory damages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(2)(A), claiming that Buy Direct (dba Direct Buy) failed to provide the dates that payments would be due on an installment contract for membership in Direct Buy's wholesale membership club. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Direct Buy, concluding that Direct Buy failed to make the required disclosures to plaintiffs, who therefore were entitled to damages. View "Lea, et al. v. Buy Direct, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for conspiracy to bring illegal aliens into the United States, bringing illegal aliens into the United States, and being unlawfully present in the United States following a prior deportation. The court vacated and remanded the case for resentencing because the court concluded that the district court erred in its application of the grouping guidelines when grouping defendant's counts of conviction. View "United States v. Garcia-Figueroa" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm. The district court concluded that defendant's prior federal conviction for escaping from the custody of the BOP by leaving a halfway house was a "crime of violence" within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a). The court concluded that it was bound by its en banc ruling in United States v. Charles, which permitted consideration of the conduct alleged in the indictment. The indictment underlying defendant's conviction alleged that he knowingly escaped from the custody of the BOP, by absconding from a halfway house in which he was lawfully confined. Thus, the conduct charged on the face of the indictment was that defendant absconded from a halfway house. Absconding from a halfway house does not categorically present a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law