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

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed his conviction and sentence, remanding to the state trial court with instructions to hold a new trial. That trial has yet to occur. In 2006, petitioner unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus from Texas courts and then applied for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court found fault with the continuing incarceration but dismissed petitioner's claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state remedies. The court held that the district court did not err and affirmed the judgment. View "Hartfield v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations licensed to conduct bingo games, filed suit challenging restrictions on the Texas Bingo Enabling Act (Bingo Act), Tex. Occ. Code 2001.001 et seq. Plaintiffs challenged provisions in the Bingo Act that prohibited charities from using the money generated by conducting bingo games for lobbying activities or to support or oppose ballot measures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions. The court reversed and held that the Bingo Act's restrictions on the use of bingo proceeds for political advocacy were permissible conditions on a government subsidy and did not operate to penalize speech. View "Dept of Texas, Veterans of Foreign Wars, et al v. Texas Lottery Commission, et al" on Justia Law

Debtor executed a Balloon Note and Deed of Trust in favor of Wells Fargo for the purchase of a home and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. On appeal, Wells Fargo challenged the district court's amended order granting debtor's motion for summary judgment, finding that Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from filing a claim in the Second Bankruptcy for any amounts that could have been, but were not, claimed in the First Bankruptcy. Because the district court abused its discretion in finding that Wells Fargo adopted inconsistent positions in debtor's bankruptcy proceedings and that the bankruptcy court's acceptance of Wells Fargo's claims in the First Bankruptcy was not negated by debtor's dismissal without discharge, the application of judicial estoppel was not warranted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to seventy-seven months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a sixteen-level crime of violence enhancement based on a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Because defendant's argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Quiroga-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to twenty-three months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a sixteen-level crime of violence enhancement based on a prior Texas conviction for sexual assault of a child. Because defendant's argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of whether petitioner waived his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the merits of petitioner's claim were adjudicated by the state courts, and that the state court's resolution of that claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Divers v. Cain" on Justia Law

This case arose when Highland filed suit against Bank of America for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, alleging that the terms sought by Bank of America in a debt-trade agreement did not conform to the parties' oral agreement. Highland appealed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of its claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Because the court found that the district court was justified in dismissing Highland's promissory estoppel claim, but that it erred in dismissing Highland's breach of contract claim, the court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. View "Highland Capital Mgmt. LP v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of condominium units that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, sued defendants after defendants failed to complete construction of the rebuild. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, based on the district court's finding that the 24-month construction obligations in the Purchase Agreements were not illusory and, therefore, the parties' contracts were exempted from the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosures Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. The court found that the language of the Purchase Agreements did not negate plaintiffs' abilities to seek damage and specific performance remedies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Hillman, et al v. Loga, III, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmation of the IJ's decision to deny his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7) unambiguously gives aliens a right to file a motion to reopen regardless of whether they have left the United States. Therefore, the BIA's application of the departure regulation to statutory motions to reopen was invalid under Chevron's first step as the statute plainly did not impose a general physical presence requirement. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Carias v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The Church filed suit in federal district court, claiming that a now-repealed city ordinance's church-specific provisions, facially and as applied, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., the First Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Mississippi Constitution. The Church simultaneously filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of the challenged provisions. The court subsequently vacated the district court's order denying the Church's motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that the issues on remand included but were not limited to: (1) whether the Church was likely to succeed on its claims challenging the validity of the newly adopted religious facilities ban; (2) whether the harm the Church would suffer absent a preliminary injunction outweighed the harm an injunction would cause the city; (3) the amount of actual damages the Church suffered on account of Sections 10.86 and 10.89 of the city's zoning ordinance, which violated RLUIPA; and (4) at the district court's discretion, whether the Church should be awarded reasonable attorneys fees as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). View "Opulent Life Church, et al v. City of Holly Springs MS, et al" on Justia Law