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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery. As part of Defendant’s sentence, and over his objection, the district court ordered Defendant to pay $5,000 in restitution to Parks Food Mart, the store he robbed. Defendant appealed this order of restitution on two grounds: first, that the district court erred in imposing restitution to a business entity and second, that the district court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $5,000.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed but modified the amount of restitution to $3,500. The court explained that MVRA directs the district court to “reimburse the victim for lost income . . . and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense.” Here, Parks Food Mart was closed for approximately 6 hours on a Monday, from 6:15 p.m. to midnight, as law enforcement investigated the robbery. In the original PSR, the probation officer reported only that the business had suffered “$4,000 from missed earnings while being closed for investigation.” The court explained that it understands that sales are variable and there may have been reason for Parks Food Mart, in stating that the store closure resulted in $4,000 in lost earnings, to expect sales on the higher end the day of the robbery. At the same time, however, the court recognized that the store closure only impacted part of the day. Given these competing tensions and the lack of any other documentation as to the store’s losses, the court found the $3,500 figure to be a better-supported estimate of lost sales. View "USA v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment. His sentence reflected the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), which is triggered when a Section 922(g) offender has three prior convictions for “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses” that were “committed on occasions different from one another.” Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the ACCA enhancement violated his constitutional rights because the facts establishing that he committed his previous violent felonies on different occasions were not charged in the indictment and either admitted by him or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the parties argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wooden v. United States instructs that the ACCA enhancement here was a constitutional error.1 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022). But in Wooden, the Court explicitly declined to address the issue that Defendant raised. Wooden is, therefore, “not directly on point” and thus does not “alter the binding nature” of Davis and White. View "USA v. Valencia" on Justia Law

Appellant Texxon Petrochemicals, LLC (“Texxon”) filed for bankruptcy. In that proceeding, Texxon filed a motion to assume executory contract, alleging that it entered into a contract with Getty Leasing in 2018 to purchase the property. Getty Leasing objected to the motion. After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court denied the motion on the grounds that, for multiple reasons, there was no valid contract to assume. The district court affirmed, finding there was insufficient evidence to show that, as required under Texas law, the alleged contract was sufficient as to the property identity or comprised an unequivocal offer or acceptance. Texxon appealed. Getty Leasing primarily contends that the appeal is mooted by the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy proceeding.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the brief email exchange did not demonstrate an offer or acceptance, as required for a contract to be binding under Texas law. Texxon fails to show that the email exchange satisfied any of the three required elements of an offer. A statement that a party is “interested” in selling a property is not an offer to sell that property—it is an offer to begin discussions about a sale. Nor were the terms of the offer clear or definite. Finally, the alleged offer failed to identify the property to be conveyed. For these reasons, Texxon is unable to show the existence of a binding contract. View "Texxon v. Getty Leasing" on Justia Law

Petitioner has been ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Petitioner concedes that he is removable but seeks cancellation of removal based on the hardship his removal would cause his family. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation, and Petitioner petitioned the court for review. Petitioner’s challenge is twofold. First, he contends that the IJ and the BIA failed to use the proper legal standard to assess his eligibility for discretionary relief. Second, he argued that the BIA erred by failing to remand his case to the IJ for consideration of new evidence as well as a potential grant of voluntary departure.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the IJ and BIA thoroughly considered each of Petitioner’s hardship arguments and applied the appropriate legal standard. The BIA also considered the new evidence presented by Petitioner but concluded that this evidence was unlikely to change the IJ’s decision. The record supports the conclusion that Petitioner failed to show that the consequences of his removal are “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves his country.” Further, Petitioner did not present this argument to the BIA, and a petitioner “must fairly present an issue to the BIA to satisfy Section 1252(d)’s exhaustion requirement.” View "Rangel Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant and his co-defendant entered a CVS pharmacy through the store’s front doors to commit an armed robbery. When police officers arrived, they encountered Defendant and Parson attempting to exit the CVS. Defendant and co-Defendant retreated into the store while the officers sought cover outside the front door and in the parking lot. Defendant and co-Defendant then ran out of the store as they shot at the police officers. One police officer sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder area. Co-Defendant sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was arrested immediately following the robbery. Defendant appealed the four-level sentencing enhancement for abduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Defendant contended that the district court erred in applying the abduction sentencing enhancement for three reasons. First, Defendant argued that he “did not force the victim to ‘accompany’ him anywhere” and that forcing the cashier from the cashier area to the restroom “does not qualify as the type of ‘forced accompaniment’ required by the abduction enhancement.” The court disagreed. Defendant pointed a gun at the cashier and forced him to walk with Defendant from the cashier area to the restroom, where Defendant zip-tied the cashier’s hands. Thus, Defendant forced the cashier to accompany him.   Second, Defendant challenged the district court’s determination that the “different location” requirement of Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) was satisfied when he moved the cashier to the bathroom. Here, Defendant forced the cashier from the cashier’s area at the front of the store to the restroom. Accordingly, the different location requirement was also satisfied. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the abduction enhancement. View "USA v. Sansbury" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Noble House, L.L.C. (“Noble House”) appealed a judgment of dismissal, without prejudice, based on forum non conveniens, granted in favor of Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”). The district court ruled that the parties’ insurance policy contained an enforceable forum-selection clause requiring litigation in the courts of England and Wales and that a return-jurisdiction clause was not required.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that although there are arguably two forum-selection clauses at play, one foreign and one domestic, the district court concluded that the forum-election clause selecting the courts of England and Wales controls. Noble House does not dispute this conclusion in its opening brief. Nor does Noble House dispute that the foreign forum-selection clause is mandatory. Only the foreign forum-selection clause’s enforceability is contested, which is addressed under the “unreasonable under the circumstances” framework – not the usual “available and adequate” framework. Further, the court held that Noble House does not carry its “heavy burden of proof” to show that the clause selecting the courts of England and Wales is unreasonable under the circumstances. Moreover, Noble House offers no compelling reason justifying its filing in Texas or why its action could not be filed timely in the foreign fora. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err when it: (1) concluded that the foreign forum-selection clause is enforceable, or (2) failed to include a return-jurisdiction clause and total waiver of any statute-of-limitations defenses. View "Noble House v. Certain Underwriters" on Justia Law

The Restaurant Law Center and the Texas Restaurant Association (“Plaintiffs”) challenge a Department of Labor regulation that refines how the federal minimum wage applies to tipped employees. The district court denied Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction on the sole ground that they failed to establish irreparable harm from complying with the new rule.   The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Plaintiffs sufficiently showed irreparable harm in unrecoverable compliance costs. The court explained that the 30-minute limitation is a new constraint on the tip credit that both requires distinct recordkeeping and affects the existing 20-percent standard. Neither the district court nor the Department explained why this new requirement would not impose new costs. To the contrary, the rule itself confirms that employers who want to continue claiming the tip credit—like Plaintiffs’ members—will “incur ongoing management costs” to ensure employees do not spend more than 30 minutes continuously performing directly supporting work. The court found that the district court abused its discretion in finding no evidence of irreparable harm View "Restaurant Law Center v. LABR" on Justia Law

The district court initially sentenced Defendant to a twenty-year term of imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised release (“SR”). Later, however, the court vacated that sentence and imposed ten years in prison and three years of SR. Defendant fully served that reduced prison term and began his SR. But because he violated the conditions of SR, the district court revoked it and imposed additional terms of imprisonment and SR. After serving a new prison term and beginning the new term of SR, Defendant again violated the conditions, so the court revoked SR a second time.   The Fifth Circuit vacated Defendant’s revocation judgments in consideration of the court’s earlier vacatur of his ten-year sentence. The court explained that the statutory framework and applicable precedent indicate that vacatur is warranted here. Defendant’s revocation judgments were part of his ten-year sentence. That sentence was vacated. The revocation judgments are therefore legally void and should be vacated as well. View "USA v. Lipscomb" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a citizen of India, worked as a crew member on the Stargate, a merchant ship managed by the Singapore-based shipping company Eastern Pacific. Plaintiff brought suit against Eastern Pacific in the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging tort claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law, as well as contract claims arising from a collective bargaining agreement. In March 2020—after Plaintiff brought his complaint and Eastern Pacific consented to federal court jurisdiction, but before Plaintiff perfected service—Eastern Pacific sued Plaintiff in Goa, India. In the Indian suit, Eastern Pacific sought an anti-suit injunction to prevent Plaintiff from litigating in American court. Plaintiff sought an anti-suit injunction to prohibit Eastern Pacific from prosecuting its Indian suit against him. Finding the Indian litigation vexatious and oppressive and determining that it need not show comity to the Indian court that had attempted to enjoin the American suit, the district court granted the injunction in favor of Plaintiff. Eastern Pacific appealed the district court’s grant of the anti-suit injunction.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that there is no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in granting the anti-suit injunction. The court reasoned that the district court was well within its discretion to conclude that the vexatiousness of the Indian litigation outweighed any comity concerns. View "Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a Texas court in 1991. The United States Supreme Court ordered Petitioner resentenced in 2007. After he was sentenced to death a second time, Petitioner exhausted his state remedies and then petitioned for federal habeas relief. The district court denied his petition and did not certify any questions for appellate review. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (“COA”).   The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a COA. The court explained that the district court found the state court’s rejection of prejudice to be reasonable under Strickland, especially considering the jury’s opportunity to assess Petitioner’s credibility in light of the eyewitness description of the crime’s brutality. No reasonable jurist could find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong. Further, the court reasoned that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion that, as evidenced in extremely thorough opinions by the state court and magistrate judge, the state court reasonably applied Strickland in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in preparing and presenting a mitigation defense. View "Brewer v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law