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

Defendant appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) for attempting to persuade, induce, or entice individuals whom he believed were eleven and thirteen years old to engage in sexual activity for which a person could be criminally charged under a Texas aggravated sexual assault statute. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where defendant demonstrated sufficient intent to persuade, induce, or entice a minor in violation of section 2422(b) in his emails to the undercover police officer. View "United States v. Caudill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his suit alleging claims of equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff stated a claim for relief that was cognizable under ERISA, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara. Because relief was available under the surcharge doctrine under Amara, the court did not address the equitable estoppel claim and the district court was free to consider that claim on remand. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant Entergy Mississippi where plaintiff failed to allege that Entergy Mississippi sponsored or administered the plan or made any decisions with respect to his benefits. View "Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim against one corrections officer at the initial screening stage and before the filing of any responsive pleadings. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's denial of medical care claim where the officers did not show deliberate indifference regarding plaintiff's denial of medical treatment and because the officers took plaintiff to see a V.A. hospital physician after the incident at issue and transported him subsequently to the prison medical department for treatment. In regards to the claim regarding plaintiff's injury in the van, the issue was moot. As for the denial of medical care claim, allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint would have been futile and the district court did not err in declining to provide leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rogers v. Boatright, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants Heard and Lambert were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States by failing to pay and impeding the IRS's collection of employment taxes. Heard was convicted of additional offenses. Both defendants raised a number of challenges to their convictions and sentences. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict Heard of bribery of a public official; the district court did not err in admitting lay testimony of one of Heard's former employees; Heard's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; the district court did not err in instructing the jury on Lambert's withdrawal defense based on a six-year statute of limitations; the district court did not err in denying Lambert's motion for judgment of acquittal based on his withdrawal from the conspiracy; any error in finding sufficient notice for Rule 404(b) evidence was harmless; Lambert's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated when the district court refused to allow him to cross-examine an IRS revenue agent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of two witnesses concerning Lambert's history of ensuring that their payroll taxes were paid; and Lambert's sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed both defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Heard, Jr., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was found not guilty of second degree murder by reason of insanity and was committed to the Attorney General's custody under 18 U.S.C. 4243(e). Defendant was subsequently found to no longer be a substantial risk to others if he followed a strict treatment regimen and was conditionally released. The district court then later found that defendant failed to comply with the conditions of his release and that he posed a substantial risk of bodily injury to others. Consequently, the district court revoked the release and placed him back into the custody of the Attorney General. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not calling for a competency hearing; defendant failed to raise a valid Sixth Amendment complaint and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to replace counsel; and the district court committed no error in its finding underlying the conclusion to revoke the conditional release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. After the district court denied defendant's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant filed a notice of appeal and the district court denied him a certificate of appealability (COA). The court then granted a COA, in relevant part on the issue of whether defendant's Rule 60(b) motion presented a successive habeas petition within the meaning of Gonzalez v. Crosby. The court concluded that it did, and thus the district court was not permitted to consider the motion. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Hernandes" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's partial denial of his motion to suppress. The district court found that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of the house containing marijuana. His consent was not automatically involuntary merely because his Miranda rights were violated. And even if government agents violated Edwards v. Arizona when they sought his consent, the Edwards violation would not suffice to justify suppression of the marijuana. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued for a declaratory judgment that the lien on their homestead was void and that the mortgage holder was required to forfeit all principal and interest. Plaintiffs also sought damages for defamation. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under Tex. Const. Art. XVI 50(a)(6); because there was no evidence or allegation of defendants' attempting to conceal information, and because the facts that gave rise to any claims were obvious and not hidden, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply in this instance to estop the lenders' assertion of the limitations defense; because the loan was valid, and plaintiffs were delinquent, the statements at issue were true and no defamation occurred; the court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the statute of limitations barred only remedies; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the amended complaints. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Priester, Jr., et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Chevron's involvement in litigation over the alleged environmental contamination of oil fields in Ecuador. Ecuador sought discovery from John Connor and GSI Environmental, his company, for use in a foreign arbitration against Chevron. During the course of extended litigation with Ecuador, Chevron, an intervenor in the district court, benefited repeatedly by arguing against Ecuador and others that the arbitration was a "foreign or international tribunal." Because Chevron's previous positions were inconsistent with its current argument, judicial estoppel was appropriate to make discovery under 28 U.S.C. 1782 available for Ecuador. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for determination of the scope of discovery. View "Republic of Ecuador, et al v. Connor, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a contract dispute between Verint and Tekelec where Tekelec sought a right to payment stemming from a patent dispute between two corporate entities not directly involved in this appeal. The district court awarded summary judgment to Tekelec and denied Verint's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court rejected Verint's claims that Tekelc lacked constitutional standing to enforce its right to the payments at issue. Because the court concluded that Verint's fixed, contractual payment obligations under the Blue Pumpkin/IEX Agreement unambiguously fell outside of the scope of the subsequent Verint/NICE Settlement's boilerplate Non-Accrual Clause, the court need not consider Tekelec's alternative argument that the disputed payments accrued prior to the effective date of the Verint/NICE Settlement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Tekelec, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Inc." on Justia Law