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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on two counts of retaliating against and threatening a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) and 876(c). The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on both counts. However, because his crime of retaliation could not be a crime of violence under the career offender guideline, the court misapplied the longest noted guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Stoker" on Justia Law

Claimant appealed an order of criminal forfeiture. Claimant is the minor child of Omar Alvarez, who pleaded guilty to drug charges and in his plea agreement, agreed to forfeit his interest in certain property, which he admitted to using in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because the petition was untimely under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(2), the court affirmed the dismissal of claimant's claim. View "United States v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

Levy Gardens appealed the district court's decision ordering Commonwealth to pay Levy Gardens pursuant to Levy Gardens' title insurance policy with Commonwealth. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Levy Gardens had coverage under the insurance policy and that Levy Gardens did not violate the conditions of the policy in a manner prejudicial to Commonwealth. The district court did not err in concluding that the insurance policy provided coverage for only the diminution in value of title to the property resulting from the zoning encumbrance. The district court's findings that Commonwealth's actions were not arbitrary and capricious and Commonwealth made its assertions in good faith were reasonable and supported by the record. Therefore, the court held that the district court did not manifestly err by declining to impose penalties to Commonwealth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Levy Gardens Partners 2007, LP v. Lewis Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Growers filed claims against PPC seeking promissory estoppel relief, alleging that the company's oral promises of a long-term relationship induced them to invest in chicken houses. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment for PPC on the ground that the written contracts between PPC and the Growers barred the alleged oral promises because the contracts addressed the same subject matter as the Growers' claims. Because the court found that this contract bar precluded the Growers' promissory estoppel claims, the court did not address the other issues raised on appeal and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Clinton Growers, et al v. Pilgrims Pride Corp." on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted on charges stemming from a sting operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Defendants worked with an undercover agent to plan an armed home invasion with the aim of stealing a large quantity of drugs. On appeal, defendants challenged their convictions and sentences on a number of grounds. The court held that the district court's only error occurred when it applied a two-level sentence enhancement to the drug conspiracy charge that should not have been applied. Defendants' other arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cervantes, et al" on Justia Law

Mariner's Cove Townhomes Association appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the pleadings for the United States. The district court held that the Association was not entitled to just compensation for the diminution of its assessment base resulting from the government's condemnation of fourteen properties in the Mariner's Cove Development. The court found that the Association's right to collect assessments was a property interest, but the loss of the Association's assessment base was incidental to the condemnation and was barred by the consequential loss rule. Accordingly, the court held that the loss of the Association's right to collect assessments on those properties was not compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. View "United States v. Land" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, struck by an Amtrak train across railroad tracks owned and maintained by Illinois Central, claimed that Illinois Central failed to signalize the crossing properly. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also held that Illinois Central demonstrated that the crossing at issue was not "unusually dangerous" as a matter of Mississippi law. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Illinois Central. View "Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his claim for disability-insurance benefits and supplemental-security-income benefits. The magistrate judge recommended reversing the SSA's denial of benefits and remanded for plaintiff's claim to the SSA for further proceedings. The district court then entered an order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted plaintiff's counsel's request and award for attorneys' fees. At issue in this appeal was the type of judgment for which a district court could grant attorneys' fees under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 406(b). The court reversed the district court's denial of attorneys' fees, concluding that the district court's construction of section 406(b) unavoidably reduced the likelihood that an attorney who undertook a disability benefits representation would receive reasonable compensation for his work. Section 406(b) fees were authorized in cases where an attorney obtained a favorable decision on remand and the SSA has not opposed such fees for over 25 years. View "Jackson v. Astrue" on Justia Law

FM was awarded damages stemming from an industrial accident that destroyed a waste treatment plant at an oil refinery plant owned by Alon. On appeal, Alon challenged the damage determination. The court affirmed the damage determination, concluding that the district court was clearly presented with two permissible views of the evidence; few records were available to estimate the cost of rebuilding the plant at issue, which counseled in favor of using a multiplier; and the 2.25 multiplier used by the district court was well within the range recommended by the witnesses and was consistent with past experiences. View "Factory Mutual Ins., Co. v. Alon USA, L.P., et al" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between a natural gas clearinghouse, Dynegy, and two separate entities that managed refinery plants, Ergon Refining and Ergon-WV. Dynegy and Ergon Refining appealed the district court's holding that Dynegy had no contractual duty to Ergon Refining to attempt to secure replacement gas after declaring force majeure in response to hurricane damage, but did have such a duty to Ergon-WV under a separate contract. Although the district court mistakenly concluded that the Ergon Refining contract was ambiguous, it nevertheless correctly used extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' understanding of the contract's "reasonable dispatch" clause. The district court erred, however, in concluding that the Ergon-WV contract unambiguously required Dynegy to attempt to secure replacement gas. Therefore, the court held that neither contract required Dynegy to attempt to secure replacement gas during the force majeure period and affirmed the district court's ruling on the Ergon Refining contract and reversed with respect to the Ergon-WV contract. View "Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. Dynegy Marketing & Trade" on Justia Law