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

Defendants appealed their convictions of possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Defendants argued that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated their convictions. The court held that the jury could not reasonably conclude, based on the available evidence, that either Defendant had possession of the marihuana with intent to distribute. The court explained that Defendant’s statement that he rearranged the bundles while showing more than mere presence does not establish an adequate nexus sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find possession. The co-Defendant’s statements that he “just helped” and “understood” he was in possession after the Agent explained the charges to him are similarly insufficient for a reasonable jury to find he possessed the marihuana. Further, the court found that it would be unreasonable for the jury to infer Defendant had possession with intent to distribute based on his statement to the Agent that he “just helped.” Second, Defendant’s statement made to DEA Agents after the Agent explained the charges against him was not a confession. View "USA v. Campos-Ayala" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked at Huntington Ingalls Incorporated as a sheet-metal mechanic. After leaving the company, Plaintiff complained of hearing loss. Plaintiff selected and met with an audiologist. An administrative law judge denied Plaintiff’s Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board. The Board reversed its initial decision on whether Plaintiff could choose his own audiologist. The Company timely petitioned for review. The question is whether audiologists are “physicians” under Section 907(b) of LHWCA.   The Fifth Circuit denied the Company’s petition for review. The court reasoned that based on the education they receive and the role that they play in identifying and treating hearing disorders, audiologists can fairly be described as “skilled in the art of healing.” However, audiologists are not themselves medical doctors. Their work complements that of a medical doctor. But, the court wrote, Optometrists, despite lacking a medical degree, are able to administer and interpret vision tests. And based on the results of those tests, optometrists can prescribe the appropriate corrective lenses that someone with impaired vision can use to bolster his or her ability to see. Audiologists are similarly able to administer hearing tests, evaluate the resulting audiograms, and then use that information to fit a patient with hearing aids that are appropriately calibrated to the individual’s level of auditory impairment. Because the plain meaning of the regulation includes audiologists, and because that regulation is entitled to Chevron deference, audiologists are included in Section 907(b) of the LHWCA’s use of the word “physician.” View "Huntington Ingalls v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

A Louisiana jury convicted Petitioner of second-degree murder. In this habeas proceeding, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel erred by failing to contact an eyewitness who would’ve supported his defense. He has twice been denied state postconviction relief. He sought federal habeas relief for a second time. The district court held the petition untimely and dismissed it with prejudice.   The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded so that the district court can rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the first instance. The court explained that courts of appeals may reach an abandoned timeliness defense when the waiver or forfeiture results from a mistake—but not when the state’s decision to focus exclusively on the merits of the habeas claim is based on a deliberate judgment call. And that is especially so where timeliness is complex, but the merits are straightforward. But rather than decide the merits of Petitioner’s claim in the first instance, the court concluded that remanding the case back to the district court is appropriate. View "Ficher v. Bickham" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this pro se action in federal district court alleging, as relevant here, that the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) violated her children’s rights under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000ff, et seq. The district court dismissed the GINA claims because Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring those claims on her own behalf and because Plaintiff—who is not a licensed attorney—could not proceed pro se on behalf of her children. On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in holding that she cannot represent her children in federal court.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the GINA claims and remanded. The court held that an absolute bar on pro se parent representation is inconsistent with Section 1654, which allows a pro se parent to proceed on behalf of her child in federal court when the child’s case is the parent’s “own.” 28 U.S.C. Section 1654. The court explained this condition would be met if federal or state law designated Plaintiff’s children’s cases as belonging to her. The court remanded because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider whether Plaintiff’s children’s claims under the GINA belong to Plaintiff within the meaning of Section 1654. View "Raskin v. Dallas Indep Sch Dist" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection on or about July 17, 1999. He was 25 years old. Soon after his entry, he was apprehended with others who had entered the country near Brownsville, Texas. On July 23, 1999, he was given a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as subject to removal because he was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The NTA did not provide a hearing date or time. Petitioner’s then-current address was correctly listed on the NTA as the address of the processing center in Los Fresnos, Texas, where he was then detained. Petitioner challenged the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind his in-absentia removal order.   The Fifth Circuit denied his petition. The court held: (1) Rodriguez does not apply here; (2) Spagnol Bastos, Gudiel, and Platero-Rosales govern this case; (3) the applicable rule from those cases is that an alien who fails to provide a viable mailing address/to correct an erroneous address forfeits his right to notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B); and (4) Petitioner forfeited his right to notice by failing to correct the erroneous address listed in his “Notification Requirement for Change of Address” and Form I-830. View "Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to assaulting, resisting, or impeding various officers or employees in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 111(a)(1) and (b). Defendant appealed the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 3C1.1 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a primary issue, in this case, is whether a court may apply Section 3C1.1 when a defendant obstructs another person’s arrest, which in this case is that of Defendant’s brother. The court wrote that when Defendant assaulted the agent, he violated Section 111 and triggered the base offense level in Section 2A2.4. Then, when Defendant physically prevented the agent from arresting another member of Defendant’s group, he obstructed the administration of justice in an offense that was closely related to his instant offense of conviction. In other words, there is a sufficient nexus between Defendant’s relevant conduct and his conviction for the assault of a federal officer. It is, therefore, plausible, in light of the record as a whole, for the district court to have found that Defendant’s conduct is properly categorized as an obstruction of justice under Section 3C1.1. View "USA v. Mendoza-Gomez" on Justia Law

In 2009, Stanford International Bank was exposed as a Ponzi scheme and placed into receivership. Since then, the Receiver has been recovering Stanford’s assets and distributing them to victims of the scheme. To that end, the Receiver sued Defendant, a Stanford investor, to recover funds for the Receivership estate. The district court entered judgment against Defendant. Defendant sought to exercise setoff rights against that judgment. Because Defendant did not timely raise those setoff rights, they have been forfeited.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, Defendant initially raised a setoff defense in his answer to the Receiver’s complaint. The Receiver moved in limine to exclude any setoff defenses before trial, arguing that any reference to setoff would be “unfairly prejudicial” and “an attempt to sidestep the claims process.” In May 2021, when Defendant moved for a stay of the district court’s final judgment, he represented that, should the Supreme Court deny certiorari, he would “not oppose a motion by the Receiver to release” funds. Yet, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Defendant changed course and registered his opposition. Defendant later again changed course, pursuing this appeal to assert setoff rights and thereby reduce his obligations. Because Defendant failed to raise his setoff defense before the district court’s entry of final judgment, he has forfeited that defense. View "GMAG v. Janvey" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cambodia, was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 1983. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3925(a) in Pennsylvania state court and was sentenced to 3 to 24 months imprisonment. Based on that conviction, Petitioner was charged as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G). Petitioner filed a motion to terminate his removal proceedings. Petitioner argued that his conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony. An IJ denied the motion, holding that Section 3925(a) “on its face” requires proof of “a defendant’s knowledge or belief, and that belief is not objective” and that the statute thus satisfied the generic mens rea requirement. Petitioner sought relief from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) finding that he is removable.   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court found that Petitioner’s conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3925(a) constitutes receipt of stolen property and thus is an aggravated felony for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The court explained that the Third Circuit has held that Pennsylvania’s receipt of stolen property offense does not have an objective element and is “purely subjective.” The Third Circuit has considered variations on Petitioner’s argument and has rejected them. The court, therefore, concluded that 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3925(a) is a categorical theft offense and thus qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” View "Khan v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2009, Stanford International Bank was exposed as a Ponzi scheme and placed into receivership. Since then, the Receiver has been recovering Stanford’s assets and distributing them to victims of the scheme. To that end, the Receiver sued Defendant, a Stanford investor, to recover funds for the Receivership estate. The district court entered judgment against Defendant. Defendant sought to exercise setoff rights against that judgment. Because Defendant did not timely raise those setoff rights, they have been forfeited.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, Defendant initially raised a setoff defense in his answer to the Receiver’s complaint. The Receiver moved in limine to exclude any setoff defenses before trial, arguing that any reference to setoff would be “unfairly prejudicial” and “an attempt to sidestep the claims process.” In May 2021, when Defendant moved for a stay of the district court’s final judgment, he represented that, should the Supreme Court deny certiorari, he would “not oppose a motion by the Receiver to release” funds. Yet, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Defendant changed course and registered his opposition. Defendant later again changed course, pursuing this appeal to assert setoff rights and thereby reduce his obligations. Because Defendant failed to raise his setoff defense before the district court’s entry of final judgment, he has forfeited that defense. View "Janvey v. GMAG" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are flight attendants who sustained injuries in connection with their employment by United Airlines. They filed claims in the Northern District of Texas, but the district court dismissed them because the flight attendants failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction. This was despite the fact that the parties agree that the flight attendants could have invoked the district court’s jurisdiction if they had included the proper allegations. The flight attendants appealed, and this court affirmed. They filed the instant case shortly after. The district court dismissed the claims as barred by the statute of limitations. This appeal presents two primary questions, both of which concern the interpretation of the jurisdiction savings statute.   The Fifth Circuit wrote that it cannot make a reliable Erie guess on these important matters of state law. Accordingly, the court certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: 1) Does Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 16.064 apply to this lawsuit where Plaintiffs could have invoked the prior district court’s subject matter jurisdiction with proper pleading? 2) Did Plaintiffs file this lawsuit within sixty days of when the prior judgment became “final” for purposes of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 16.064(a)(2)? View "Sanders v. Boeing Company" on Justia Law