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

Defendants Mathew Dean Moore and Melvin Williams, former New Orleans Police Officers (NOPD), appealed their convictions and sentences arising from an incident that resulted in the death of an individual. The court concluded that a jury could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the individual's death was proximately caused by and the foreseeable result of being kicked in the chest by Williams; the district court did not err by basing Williams' sentence on the base offense of voluntary manslaughter; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Moore's conviction for aiding and abetting the submission of a false incident report and by obstructing a federal investigation through the submission of a false NOPD incident report and aiding and abetting each other; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Moore's conviction for making false, material statements to the FBI; and the district court did not err in determining Moore's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Moore, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought federal habeas relief raising Batson v. Kentucky claims. The court subsequently granted petitioner a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on the limited issue of comparative juror analysis required by Miller-El v. Dretke. After the COA was granted, the Supreme Court decided Cullen v. Pinholster, which called in question whether the district court could properly grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing on his Batson claim. The court held that Pinholster's restriction did not bar the federal evidentiary hearing conducted in this case because the district court first concluded, solely on the basis of the state court record, that the state courts committed legal error, as required under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), through the state courts' "unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." After reviewing the record, the court held that petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking the two black panelists at issue were a pretext for purposeful discrimination and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Cain" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former TDCJ employee, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for TDCJ on her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D), claims. Plaintiff's allergic reaction to the use of scented candles and wall plug-ins around her work area was the basis of her ADA claim. The court held that plaintiff did not suffer from a disability within the meaning and coverage of the ADA. Further, there was no dispute that TDCJ did not receive plaintiff's FMLA certification before the deadline. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Milton v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice" on Justia Law

Christopher Sepulvado appealed an order transferring his second-in-time petition for writ of habeas corpus, amended motion to appoint counsel, and a motion to stay his execution. He also requested a certificate of appealability (COA). In 1993, Sepulvado was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of his six-year-old stepson. On appeal, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction over both the district court's order and the motions it transferred thereby; Sepulvado's second-in-time habeas petition was an abuse of the writ and was therefore successive; because the petition was successive, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it in light of the fact that Sepulvado did not obtain the court's prior authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A); because the court lacked jurisdiction, there was no basis for a stay of execution; and Sepulvado did not request a COA from the district court and therefore, the court was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of transfer; dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction; dismissed the amended motion to appoint counsel for want of jurisdiction; denied the motion for stay of execution; and dismissed the COA. View "In re: Christopher Sepulvado" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from charges related to their scheme to fraudulently obtain mortgage loans. The primary issue on appeal was whether the wire fraud convictions and money laundering convictions merged to result in convictions for two crimes on the same facts, when the facts should support convictions for wire fraud. The court held that the district court correctly found that the wire fraud and money laundering convictions did not merge. The wire fraud crimes were complete before the conduct forming the basis of the money laundering convictions began, and defendants used only profits from the underlying wire fraud to promote further wire fraud crimes. Finally, defendants have failed to identify any reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kennedy, et al" on Justia Law

Debtor's ex-wife loaned him two sums of money to support his separate business. At issue was whether the debt was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court and concluded that the debt was nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code, which left it to the state court to decide whether a property right was properly addressed in divorce proceedings, or as a separate contractual claim. View "Kinkade v. Kinkade" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with illegal reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of twelve months imprisonment. The government conceded that the district court's lack of notice that it intended to depart upward from the Sentencing Guidelines was a clear and obvious error in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). Even assuming that the error affected defendant's substantial rights, defendant has not met his burden of showing that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant where the district court was permitted to consider the need for deterrence as a sentencing factor and defendant's previous immigration encounters and removals in departing upward from his sentencing range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Zelaya-Rosales" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant subsequently violated the conditions of his supervised release and was sentenced to 24-months of imprisonment to be followed by 24-months of supervised released. Defendant appealed. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 3582(a) applied to a revocation sentence and the district court erred under Tapia v. United States by considering defendant's rehabilitative needs in imposing his prison sentence. Further, the error affected defendant's substantial rights. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Garza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, wire fraud, and money laundering. Defendant's convictions stemmed from her involvement in an insurance annuity scheme with her son to defraud customers. The court held that defendant cited no authority in support of her contentions as to the impropriety of admitting a certain witness's testimony and therefore, waived this argument; the record showed that the Government presented significant evidence, albeit circumstantial, that demonstrated defendant was actually involved in her son's scheme or deliberately indifferent to it; given that this evidence was cumulative of the factual resume, the trial court's error in admitting it was harmless and did not warrant reversal; the deliberate ignorance instruction was proper; and no rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established all of the essential elements of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, the court vacated defendant's money laundering conviction (Count 27). View "United States v. Demmitt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court seeking relief under general maritime law, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, and Texas tort law. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing his friend's death as a result of an accident on a jack-up rig attached to the Outer Continental Shelf. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for remand and granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the suit was properly removed to federal court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's, 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, grant of original federal question jurisdiction, regardless of whether maritime law provided the substantive rule of decision, and regardless of the citizenship of the parties. Because plaintiff could not show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claims under either Texas or maritime law, the court affirmed the district court's orders denying remand and granting summary judgment to defendants. View "Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et al" on Justia Law