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

Defendant pled guilty to using a fraudulent visa as proof of permission to enter the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a two level enhancement for previous deportation under U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). The court affirmed the sentence, rejecting defendant's contention that because he voluntarily departed he had not "been deported" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). View "United States v. Murillo-Acosta" on Justia Law

Movant, a death row prisoner, contended that he is intellectually disabled and is, therefore, constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia. The court concluded that the evidence in the record was more than sufficient to satisfy movant's burden of making out a prima facie showing of intellectual disability sufficient to warrant a successive habeas petition. Having authorized movant to file a successive federal habeas petition asserting his Atkins claims, the court granted the motion for a stay of execution pending resolution of movant's Atkins claim. View "In re: Robert Campbell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed various products liability and general tort claims against the Brand Defendants - who initially developed and received FDA approval for metoclopramide - and Generic Defendants - who manufactured and sold the product that plaintiff used. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of his prolonged use of the drug metoclopramide, he developed tardive dyskinesia. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his claims against the Brand Defendants and grant of summary judgment to the Generic Defendants. The court held that plaintiff's products liability claims against the Generic Defendants were preempted under the holdings and reasoning of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, and that plaintiff failed to adequately plead any parallel claims. The court also held that plaintiff's claims against the Brand Defendants failed because plaintiff did not use the Brand Defendants' products and because Texas did not recognize a duty to a consumer who uses a competitor's products. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the Generic Defendants and grant of summary judgment to the Brand Defendants. View "Eckhardt, et al. v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiring to harbor illegal aliens for commercial advantage or private financial gain. The court concluded that the district court erred in admitting bad-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) but the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(5) for brandishing a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(6) for intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, and U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(7) for causing substantial bodily harm. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671, against Louisiana national guardsmen for alleged negligence arising from post-Hurricane Katrina activities undertaken while they were in federal-pay status. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (the immunity statute), La. Rev. Stat. 29:735(A)(a), grants immunity to the state and its agents if they were engaged in emergency-preparedness activities. The court agreed with the district court that the guardsmen were engaged in emergency-preparedness activities and were therefore immune. In regards to plaintiff's alternative argument that the immunity statute is unconstitutional under a provision of the Louisiana Constitution, the court concluded that Louisiana's immunity statute was not unconstitutional as applied to the guardsmen who were put into the shoes of private individuals for purposes of the FTCA claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Alfonso, IV v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington; the district court committed no error under Brady v. Maryland; petitioner's claim of discrimination in selecting a grand jury foreperson was abandoned and procedurally barred; in regards to petitioner's Batson challenges, the district court did not err in holding that petitioner had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the state court's determination was unreasonable; and petitioner's claim of racial discrimination by the jury failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffman v. Cain" on Justia Law

This suit arose when Kenyon filed a revocatory and oblique action against defendants to collect on the judgment against Brennan's Inc. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal where the voluntary dismissal of Ted Brennan's appeal voided his notice of appeal. He failed to file a new notice of appeal within the time limits required by Rule 4(a) or seek relief in the district court as provided by Rule 4(a). The reinstatement of his appeal by a single judge of this court was not decisive of this specific jurisdictional issue. View "Colbert, et al. v. Brennan, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a Loan Agreement and Term Note between Regions and First KT and a Limited Guaranty Agreement executed by defendant as a security for the loan. Baron has since acquired all of Regions' rights against defendant. Regions, as the former plaintiff, had filed suit against defendant for the total amount due on the Guaranty. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of Regions' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that defendant's claim that First KT made payments that reduced the amount under the Guaranty was fairly classified as an affirmative defense under Louisiana law; the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant was long familiar with the payment claim he sought to raise, that he failed to raise it in a pragmatically sufficient time, and that the delay prejudiced Baron, L.L.C. on its ability to respond to the claim; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Regions Bank v. Tauch" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against federal officials and others after they were sexually assaulted while being transported from an immigration detention center. Plaintiffs claimed violations of their Fifth Amendment due process right to freedom from deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, alleging that the officials knew of violations of a contractual provision requiring that transported detainees be escorted by at least one officer of the same gender, and that the officials understood the provision aimed to prevent sexual assault. On appeal, Defendants Robertson and Rosado, federal officials who worked as ICE Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs), challenged the denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that plaintiffs properly alleged that Robertson and Rosado had actual knowledge both of the violations of the Service Agreement provision and of that provision's assault-preventing objective. However, because the complaint did not plausibly allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Robertson and Rosado were entitled to qualified immunity and the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss. View "Doe, et al. v. Robertson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a baseball bat manufacturer, filed an antitrust suit against the NCAA and the NFHS, alleging that they imposed a regulation, the Bat-Ball Coefficient of Restitution Standard (BBCOR), that restrained trade in the market for non-wood baseball bats. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a conspiracy under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; the only plausible injury asserted was its own and only injuries to the markets were cognizable; and therefore, plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the district court properly dismissed its Sherman Act claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to amend where two prior amendments were granted and allowing a third would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend. View "Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athl. Assn., et al." on Justia Law