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

BP and Andarko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the the government on the question of their liability for civil penalties under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A). Section 1321(b)(7)(A) imposes mandatory penalties upon the owners of facilities "from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged." The court found no genuine dispute as to defendants' liability for civil penalties where the well's cement failed, resulting in the loss of controlled confinement of oil such that the oil ultimately entered navigable waters. Therefore, the well is a facility "from which oil or a hazardous substance was discharged""into or upon the navigable waters of the United States." Andarko and BP "shall be subject to a civil penalty" calculated in accordance with statutory and regulatory guidelines and this liability is unaffected by the path traversed by the discharged oil. Nor is liability precluded by any culpability on the part of the vessel's owner or operator. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction for concealment of bankruptcy estate assets valued at more than $942,000 under 28 U.S.C 2255, arguing that his court-appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The magistrate judge recommended granting relief but was overruled by the district court. Because defendant's indictment was timely, he could not show that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to research the applicable statute of limitations in advance of defendant's guilty plea; counsel did not fail to adequately investigate defendant's criminal case; and while counsel's performance was less than commendable where counsel did not recall looking at certain discovery documents or understanding what defendant was pleading guilty to, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by such deficient performance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation following conviction of a felony offense in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), and being an alien unlawfully present in the United States and in possession of a firearm previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2). The court agreed with its sister circuits and held that an unlawful reentry offense and a section 992(g) offense should not be grouped as they harm different societal interests. Because the offenses affected different societal interests, they have different "victims" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2(a). Since the offenses had different "victims," section 3D1.2(a) does not require their grouping. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's multiple-count adjustment. View "United States v. McLauling" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged her commitment to a mental health treatment facility within the federal prison system under 18 U.S.C. 4245. The court concluded that the Government's petition for a commitment hearing was authorized because appellant objected in writing to the purpose of her hospitalization. The court also concluded that, although there was some dispute as to whether treatment was necessary to address appellant's belligerence and aggression, there was clear and convincing evidence that psychiatric treatment was necessary to ensure that appellant's medical conditions could be properly treated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sealed Appellee 1 v. Sealed Appellant 1" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to give them "crime victim" status under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that petitioners have a right to file their own motion to be declared crime victims under the CVRA, and it is clear and indisputable that no time bar prevented the district court from considering the novel arguments raised by pro bono counsel in its motion below. Issuance of a writ is appropriate where, as here, petitioners raised arguments previously raised by the Government during the time the Government represented their interests, and where petitioners have been able to retain counsel. View "In re: Jewell Allen, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, tour guides, filed suit challenging the City's requirement that those conducting tours for hire in the city have a tour guide license. Plaintiffs claimed that the City's requirement violated their First Amendment rights and sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court concluded that the content-neutral requirement promoted the government's interest in requiring licensees to know the city and not be felons or drug addicts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City. View "Kagan, et al. v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances - including defendant's brisk departure from his car and the circumstances that transpired during the seconds between her exit and the officer's seizure of him - did not amount to articulable facts from which an officer could reasonably suspect that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Accordingly, the seizure violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under Terry v. Ohio and the court vacated the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that defendant's previous conviction in Texas state court for burglary was a predicate offense constituting a "burglary of a dwelling" under the Sentencing Guidelines and was therefore a crime of violence. The court also held that defendant's written Texas "boiler plate" judicial confession, in which he confessed to "each and every act alleged" in the indictment, was sufficient to establish that his prior conviction rested on every offense the indictment charged. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Conde-Castaneda" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Verizon, alleging that Verizon discharged her in retaliation for complaining of discrimination and harassment pursuant to Texas law. Verizon moved to federal court based on diversity. The court held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement is only a condition precedent. When the court considered the appeal on the merits, the court found no merit based on the absence of causation between plaintiff's complaints and her discharge; the decisionmaker had no knowledge of the alleged protected activity claimed by plaintiff; and although the Verizon executive terminating her had no knowledge of her complaint, she did not have knowledge of a complex commission-generating scheme in which plaintiff was implicated and from which she profited. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants. View "Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Texas, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Novartis in the Western District of Texas, then the case was transferred by the Judicial Panel on MDL to the Middle District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs' compliant alleged, inter alia, that Novartis failed to notify the public and physicians of the possibility of suffering osteonecrosis of the jaw until 2004 and failing to notify dental professionals until 2005. The MDL court granted partial summary judgment to Novartis and ruled that: (1) Texas law applied to plaintiffs' case, and (2) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 82.007(a) - which provides manufacturers a rebuttable presumption against liability for failing to warn - foreclosed plaintiffs' failure to warn claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) and Rule 60(b) motions; the remand court properly applied the law of the case when it refused to reconsider the MDL court's rulings that section 82.007 applied to plaintiffs' failure to warn claims; and the remand court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' warranty claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McKay, et al v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp." on Justia Law