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

Highland Capital Management, L.P., a Dallas-based investment firm, managed billion-dollar, publicly traded investment portfolios for nearly three decades. However, myriad unpaid judgments and liabilities forced Highland Capital to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This provoked a breakup between Highland Capital and its co-founder. Under those trying circumstances, the bankruptcy court successfully mediated with the largest creditors and ultimately confirmed a reorganization plan amenable to most of the remaining creditors. The co-founder and other creditors unsuccessfully objected to the confirmation order and then sought review in this court. In turn, Highland Capital moved to dismiss their appeal as equitably moot.   The Fifth Circuit first held that equitable mootness does not bar the court’s review of any claim. Second, the court affirmed the confirmation order in large part. The court reversed only insofar as the plan exculpates certain non-debtors in violation of 11 U.S.C. Section 524(e), strike those few parties from the plan’s exculpation, and affirm on all remaining grounds.   The court explained that in sum, the court’s precedent and Section 524(e) require any exculpation in a Chapter 11 reorganization plan be limited to the debtor, the creditors’ committee and its members for conduct within the scope of their duties and the trustees within the scope of their duties. And so, excepting the Independent Directors and the Committee members, the exculpation of non-debtors here was unlawful. View "NexPoint v. Highland Capital Management" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Defendant for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to the police. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress in part and denied it in part. At a bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty and later sentenced him to a within-guidelines term of 10 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, the record does not show that the officers confronted Defendant with his prewarning statements to deliberately circumvent Miranda. Instead, they “merely responded to evidence” that they acquired while investigating Defendant’s claim that he was being chased. Further, Defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of his pre-arrest statements, nor does he argue that his post-warning statements were involuntary. At oral argument, however, he argued for the first time that he could not have knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights because he was “delusional.” But Defendant conceded at oral argument that voluntariness was not the “thrust” of his brief before the district court. Generally, arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal. That applies where, as here, a party “fail[s] to raise [an argument] in its opening brief. Thus, any argument concerning voluntariness is waived. View "USA v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on all five counts of a 2011 indictment charging himself and two co-conspirators with a variety of offenses arising from a well-orchestrated scheme to circumvent American export controls designed to prevent dual-use commodities—goods with both civilian and military applications—from falling into the hands of adversaries like Iran. On appeal, Defendant seeks reversal and remand on three independent grounds.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that because of the Government’s diligence and Defendant’s evasiveness, the first two factors in the Barker balancing test weigh decidedly against Defendant’s speedy trial claim. The court wrote this is a case where a defendant who took steps to avoid being caught now faults the Government for not catching him sooner. Further, Defendant’s efforts to avoid apprehension cut against his speedy trial assertion in another way, as well—they betray a lack of diligence in asserting the right. Thus, because the Barker balancing test weighs overwhelmingly against Defendant, the district court was correct to deny his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial.   Finally, because the Sixth Amendment does not require a district court to render a particularized dissertation to justify a partial courtroom closure that is reasonable, neutral, and largely trivial (i.e., requiring spectators to watch and listen on live stream rather than in-person), the district court’s partial closure of Defendant’s jury trial was not unconstitutional. View "USA v. Ansari" on Justia Law

Texas City’s “permit officer” handles applications for ambulance permits for the City. One day, he spotted an ambulance without a permit. He knew he was powerless to issue citations to the drivers himself, so he summoned someone who could (the Fire Marshal). While waiting for the Fire Marshal to show up, the officer repeatedly told the ambulance drivers that they were detained, that they could not leave, and that they must stay. He did not have that power, but he did it anyway. The Fire Marshal showed up about thirty minutes later and issued them citations. The ambulance drivers sued, claiming this violated their Fourth Amendment rights.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part finding that because the officer acted beyond the scope of his discretionary duties as “permit officer,” he is not entitled to qualified immunity. But the claim against the City fails because the officer did not have final policymaking authority. The court explained that the officer was not acting within the scope of his discretionary authority because state law does not give a permit officer the authority to conduct stops of any kind.   However, the court wrote, that the City cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because Wylie does not have any final policymaking authority. Section 1983 allows suits against persons for violating federal rights. That term includes municipalities like Texas City. But a city cannot be held liable under Section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory of liability. Rather, a city can be liable only if one of its policies or customs caused the injury. View "Sweetin v. City of Texas City" on Justia Law

Loggerhead Holdings, Inc., a holding company that owned a scuba diving cruise business, was one of many plaintiffs who brought suit against an oil company because of the explosion of an offshore drilling rig and the resulting discharge of a massive quantity of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Loggerhead’s claims were dismissed on summary judgment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that Loggerhead had been able to continue operations for several years despite its fraught financial condition, and indeed despite reporting net losses on its taxes for the three years preceding the disastrous events of April 2010 in the Gulf. Whether it could have continued to survive, if not thrive, had the April events not occurred presents a fact question. Thus, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find the requisite causal link between the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Loggerhead’s demise. Summary judgment should not have been granted.   However, because Loggerhead was not able to offer more than Dixon’s allegations and an unsupported estimate — evidence “so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant” — the district court properly granted BP’s motion for summary judgment on the Section 2702(b)(2)(B) claim. View "Loggerhead Holdings v. BP" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her minor daughter petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings to allow them to apply for cancellation of removal. The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.   The court explained that an abuse of discretion occurs if the BIA’s decision “is capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies. That standard is met here because the BIA’s decision to deny Petitioner’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. View "Parada v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens for financial gain. At his original sentencing, the district court applied an enhancement for intentionally or recklessly creating a risk of death or serious bodily harm to another person and then sentenced Defendant to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, and the Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence.   Relying on the new evidence, the district court again applied the enhancement and sentenced Defendant to the same sentence that he had received before. Defendant appealed, arguing both that the district court exceeded this court’s mandate by agreeing to hear new evidence and that the new evidence introduced by the Government is still insufficient to warrant the imposition of the enhancement.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed holding that Carales-Villalta binds the court and is dispositive here. Moreover, even under Defendant’s preferred approach, the district court did not err in hearing additional evidence related to the Section 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement on remand. Further, the court has previously held that transporting aliens in a manner that significantly hinders their ability to exit the vehicle quickly creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. In other words, on resentencing the Government proved an aggravating factor that was not considered by this court during Defendant’s first appeal. The presence of that aggravating factor is dispositive here, as its presence is sufficient for the application of Section 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement. View "USA v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The United States appeals the district court’s summary judgment rulings rendered in this federal income tax refund action filed by Plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and found that the district court erred in its jurisdictional determination. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.     The court explained that determining whether a tax assessment complies with Section 6501’s three-year limitation period necessitates a determination of whether Section 6229 has extended that period, as is true here, our decisions have repeatedly concluded that a “partnership item” is presented for determination. And Section 7422(h) prohibits refund action courts from deciding partnership items in the first instance or re-evaluating a tax court’s determination of those items. Thus, in this instance, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Section 6501 refund claims and reversibly erred in concluding the contrary. Further, the court wrote that Plaintiffs’ argument that notice was required—because their deficiency was attributable to a violation of their Section 6501 assessment deadline—misunderstands the meaning of “deficiency” as that term is defined by Section 6211(a). View "Baxter v. USA" on Justia Law

This is an appeal from a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that Defendant Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., doing business as Merit Health Biloxi (“Merit Health”), a hospital, has a duty to disclose that it charges a “facility fee,” also referred to as a “surcharge,” to all emergency room patients who receive care at its facility. The district court, making an Erie guess informed by the Mississippi Supreme Court’s references to, and partial application of, the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 551, determined that Merit Health did not have a duty to disclose because the surcharge was not a “fact basic to the transaction”, and it, therefore, granted the motion to dismiss.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that in applying relevant legal precepts, the court thinks that the Mississippi Supreme Court would hold that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that Merit Health had a duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose the surcharge. First, Plaintiff alleged that the surcharge was a material fact. Second, Plaintiff alleged that Merit Health was aware that patients like her were unaware of the surcharge, but nonetheless failed to disclose it. Third, Plaintiff alleged that she had a reasonable expectation of disclosure because Merit Health holds itself out to be a “caring community-based organization” and patients like her expected Merit Health to disclose the surcharge based on the confidence and trust that they placed in the hospital. View "Henley v. Biloxi H.M.A." on Justia Law

This dispute is about whether Texas must provide around-the-clock nursing services to a disabled individuals even though the expense of doing so exceeds the cost cap in the state’s Medicaid program. Plaintiff contends that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act require this service because the alternative of institutionalization would amount to discrimination. The district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Texas to provide the nursing services.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction. The court explained that with the scorecard lopsided in favor of exercising jurisdiction, it is unlikely the district court abused its discretion in declining to abstain. Further, although Plaintiff has shown that the district court should hear her claims, we conclude she is unlikely to succeed on one of them: her due process claim. The court found that because it is unlikely that Plaintiff has a property interest in the treatment she is seeking, a preliminary injunction was not warranted on her due process claim. Finally, on the current record, Plaintiff has not shown that she can prevail on an Olmstead claim seeking services that exceed the cost cap in Texas’s Medicaid waiver program. View "Harrison v. Young" on Justia Law