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

Defendant, a New Orleans Police Department Captain and Traffic Division commander, was convicted of crimes related to his involvement with a scheme to defraud Entergy, a New Orleans-based utilities provider. The court held that the district court's issuance of the deliberate ignorance instruction was erroneous, but the error was harmless; the district court correctly recognized that the standard Rule 404(b) instruction to the jury on "other acts" would need to be modified; to the extent the introduction of the Rule 404(b) evidence was erroneous, the doctrine of invited error applied; there was no Confrontation Clause violation nor abuse of discretion in limiting defendant's counsel's cross-examination of the codefendant; the district court did not clearly err in applying either the public official sentencing guidelines enhancement or the high-level or sensitive position enhancement; the district court erred in finding more than one bribe, and it should have therefore declined to apply the corresponding two-level sentencing guidelines enhancement; the district court erred in its calculation of the expected benefit; the district court's consideration of the 30-year statutory maximum was improper but it was harmless; and the sentencing guidelines enhancement errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Roussel" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence based on his conviction under Georgia Code 16-5-70(b), which the district court concluded was a crime of violence. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the statute under which defendant was convicted did not require a showing of physical force. View "United States v. Resendiz-Moreno" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA that he was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The IJ concluded that petitioner's conviction for attempted sexual assault under Texas Penal Code section 22.011 was a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(b) because the offense presented a substantial risk of the use of physical force against another. When petitioner appealed the IJ's order of removal, the BIA dismissed the appeal. Because the record did not establish that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), the court granted his petition and vacated the order of removal. View "Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with threatening to kill the President, a former President, and a federal law enforcement officer. On appeal, defendant challenged an order of the district court directing the BOP to involuntarily administer psychiatric medicine to him for the purpose of restoring his competency to stand trial. The court found that the BOP satisfactorily complied with the 1992 version of CFR 549.43(a)(5), which required that a psychiatrist hearing officer "determine whether treatment or psychotropic medication was necessary in order to attempt to make the inmate competent for trial." In light of Sell v. United States, the court affirmed the district court's order approving involuntary medication for the purpose of restoring defendant to competency. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and lifetime term of supervised release following a guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender. The court found that the sentencing judge adequately explained her reasons for rejecting defendant's mitigating evidence and imposing an upward variance on the term of imprisonment. Therefore, defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable. Likewise, the court held that the 27 months of imprisonment was substantively reasonable where the sentencing judge did not abuse her discretion by determining that defendant's willingness to cooperate did not mitigate his offense or criminal history, and in giving significant weight to defendant's criminal history and its characteristics. The court held, however, that the order regarding the lifetime term of supervised release must be vacated because the sentencing judge did not give reasons for her decision. View "United States v. Fraga" on Justia Law

Defendants were sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering a fellow prison inmate. Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing five prospective jurors who expressed reservations about their ability to impose capital punishment. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated premeditation and in view of this evidence, a jury could not rationally have found defendants guilty of second degree murder, while acquitting them of first degree murder. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' request for a lesser-included-offense instruction. A rational juror could have concluded that defendants intended to inflict, and in fact did inflict, greater abuse than that necessary to cause the victim's death. A rational juror could have concluded that defendants posed a future threat to the safety of other inmates or prison staff based on, inter alia, defendants' pattern of violence and institutional misconduct, as well as defendants' attack on the victim and the penitentiary's correctional officers. Defendants have not demonstrated specific prejudice from the denial of their motion to sever. The court addressed defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed their convictions and capital sentences in all respects. View "United States v. Snarr, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a plea agreement, of being unlawfully present in the United States after having been deported. On appeal, defendant challenged his sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)-(1)(A)(ii). The court held that defendant's prior conviction of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft under Texas state law constituted a crime of violence because of its inherent potential for harm to persons. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Morales-Mota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Plan on his claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiff asserted that the Plan did not comply with procedures set out by ERISA by changing its basis for denial on administrative appeal and by not identifying the independent physician reviewer who recommended denial on administrative appeal. Because plaintiff did not specify the failure to identify the physician in his amended complaint, the court did not address this issue. The court agreed with plaintiff, however, that the Plan did not substantially comply with ERISA procedures by changing its basis for denying coverage on administrative appeal. The court concluded that remand to the Plan for a full and fair review was appropriate. View "Rossi v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Svcs. Corp. Emp. Benefits Plan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's entry of an order declaring enforceable under general maritime law a liquidated damages provision (LD Provision) in a contract between defendant and plaintiff. The parties entered into a Vessel Sales Agreement (VSA), which included the LD Provision, that provided for a $250,000 payment for each violation of the non-competition clause. The court followed Farmers Exp. Co. v. M/V Georgis Prois in finding persuasive the district court's careful factual findings as to whether the LD Provision was a reasonable forecast of damages. The court held that looking at the contract at the time it was made, ex ante breach, the court could not bicker with the $250,000 per occurrence forecast. Plaintiff had not met its burden to prove that the LD Provision was a penalty. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court properly held that the LD Provision was enforceable and affirmed the judgment. View "International Marine, L.L.C., et al v. Delta Towing, L.L.C." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the multi-district litigation involving the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig oil spill. Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of its action brought under the citizen-suit provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9659(a), and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11046(a). The court concluded, with one exception, that the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's claims as moot because the Macondo well had been capped and sealed; on the present state of the record, plaintiff had standing to assert its claim for relief based on defendants' alleged failure to comply with the reporting requirements of EPCRA; and the EPCRA claim was not moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law