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

Exxon sought $1.5 billion from the IRS. The source of this sum is two retroactive changes Exxon made to its returns. The first change involves a tax issue: whether a transaction is a mineral lease or mineral sale. See, e.g., Goldfield Consol. Mines Co. v. Scott, 247 U.S. 126 (1918); Stratton’s Indep., Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913). The second concerned a more recent development in the tax code: how an incentive for producing renewable fuels affects a company’s excise tax, and in turn, its income tax.   The district court rejected both changes but gave Exxon back a penalty the IRS imposed for requesting an excessive refund. Exxon appealed the lease-versus-sale issue, and the government cross-appealed the rejection of the penalty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.   The court explained that Qatar and Malaysia have an economic interest in the minerals being extracted. That means the agreements are as Exxon originally described them: leases. The court further wrote that although Exxon’s position is close to the “reasonable basis” line, it agreed with the district court’s assessment granting Exxon a refund.   The court next addressed the issue regarding which amount of excise tax Exxon can deduct from its gross income: (1) the lesser amount it actually paid after claiming a renewable-fuel credit or (2) the greater amount it would have paid without the credit. The court found that Exxon’s renewable-fuel credit reduced its excise tax. It can deduct only the reduced amount. View "Exxon Mobil v. USA" on Justia Law

Defendant made two social media posts indicating that he paid another man, who was positive for COVID-19, to lick every item at a local grocery store. Defendant did not actually pay the other man, but the posts "set off alarm bells" resulting in FBI agents being dispatched to the grocery store.Defendant was indicted and ultimately convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1) for orchestrating a hoax that simulated another crime. Defendant claimed on appeal that the biological-weapons statute did not extend to conduct such as licking items in a grocery store and that the terrorist-hoax statute is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The Fifth Circuit rejected Defendant's challenges, finding that although the biological-weapons statute does contain an implied exception for local crimes, Defendant's purported conduct was serious enough to place him within the purview of federal law enforcement, and threats like Defendant's are not protected by the First Amendment. View "USA v. Perez" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny his motion to reopen. Petitioner illegally entered the United States, at Laredo, Texas. The Government filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in immigration court and charged Petitioner as removable under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Petitioner did not appear and was ordered removed in absentia.   Petitioner contends the Fifth Circuit should remand the matter to the Board for reconsideration of his NTA challenge in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021). The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court explained that here, in contrast to Rodriguez, Petitioner received the NTA and does not dispute that he also received the subsequent notice of hearing (NOH). The fact that Petitioner received the NOH (or does not dispute receiving the NOH) makes Rodriguez distinguishable. View "Campos-Chaves v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are nine female detention service officers working at the Dallas County Jail who are employed by Defendant-Appellee Dallas County Sheriff’s Department. Dallas County (“the County”). A gender-based scheduling policy went into effect and only male officers were given full weekends off whereas female officers were allowed two weekdays off or one weekday and one weekend day off. Plaintiffs alleged that they were told that it would be safer for the male officers to be off during the weekends as opposed to during the week.   Plaintiffs filed suit against the County for violations of Title VII and the Texas Employment Discrimination Act (the “TEDA”). On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred by considering whether the County’s scheduling policy constituted an adverse employment action rather than applying the statutory text of Title VII and the TEDA. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s motion to dismiss The court held that Plaintiffs’ did not plead an adverse employment action, as required under the Fifth Circuit’s Title VII precedent. The court explained that the conduct complained of here fits squarely within the ambit of Title VII’s proscribed conduct: discrimination with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of one’s employment because of one’s sex. Given the generally accepted meaning of those terms, the County would appear to have violated Title VII. However, the court explained it is bound by the circuit’s precedent, which requires a Title VII plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she “suffered some adverse employment action by the employer.” View "Hamilton v. Dallas County" on Justia Law

GenMa is a power company that, long ago, leased two coal-fired power plants from the Lessors. To comply with those leases, GenMa paid NFC $130 million to insure the Lessors up to that sum if GenMa didn’t pay rent. Too late, NFC realized it had promised the Lessors more than $130 million. The Lessors forced NFC to honor its promise, and NFC sued GenMa and others for its losses.   GenMa removed NFC’s claims to district court, which then transferred those claims to a bankruptcy court in Texas. After losing there and at the district court, NFC appealed. It says that its claims against GenMa should return to New York state court because the federal court lacked jurisdiction or because federal law required abstention. NFC also insists, pressing four contract-law theories, that GenMa must cover NFC’s losses.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed holding that the district court had jurisdiction; abstention was not required; and NFC’s claims lack merit.  The court explained that the parties may have miscalculated the amount of credit support needed to satisfy GenMa’s lease obligations. But that mistake, mutual or not, was GenMa’s problem. Had Natixis carefully crafted its letters of credit, NFC would not have had to pay any more to the Lessors than GenMa had paid it, no matter how badly the parties miscalculated the credit support that GenMa’s leases required. The court agreed with GenMa: “NFC cannot demand more money from GenMa for discovering that it could have obtained less credit support” than the Agreement required, and reformation cannot erase that unforced blunder. View "Natixis Funding v. GenOn Mid-Atl" on Justia Law

Appellee brought a retaliatory arrest claim against the Mayor and Chief of Police of Castle Hills, claiming that she was arrested for engaging in protected speech. However, Appellee acknowledges that there was probable cause for her arrest. Appellants asserted a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights in her retaliatory arrest claim because the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest. While probable cause to arrest does not necessarily preclude a retaliatory arrest claim, Appellee failed to establish any of these exceptions. View "Gonzalez v. Trevino" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from an alleged sexual assault committed by a law enforcement officer while he was conducting a welfare check on Plaintiff at her home. The district court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court found that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force failed because Plaintiff had not been seized, and that the Eighth Amendment claim failed because she was not a prisoner. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her claims under the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as her claims against the County and Sheriff.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court with respect to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, reversed the order of the district court with respect to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth claim, and remanded. The court held that the Deputy’s alleged sexual abuse violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to bodily integrity. Thus, the Deputy is not entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained it need not reach the claims against the County and the Sheriff. The court remanded those issues to the district court to address in the first instance. View "Tyson v. County of Sabine" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence.  Defendant challenged the denial of three pre-trial motions: leave to file untimely motions to suppress, its merits, and a motion for a continuance.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, including its order of forfeiture. The court explained that to show plain error, Defendant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious, which affects his substantial rights. With that showing, the court has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.   Here, the court found no privacy interest was here invaded— information subject to the daily view of strollers and the community. Thus, Defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in not suppressing the video evidence.  Next, the court wrote that Defendant offered no proof that the affiant deliberately or recklessly falsified statements about the information from cooperating defendants to mislead the court. Therefore, Defendant cannot show that the district court plainly erred when it declined to suppress evidence from the search of his property.   Further, Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence because the district court did not consider the changing legal status of marijuana. Defendant has already received what he now requests: a downward variance of his sentence to account for the difference between marijuana and other drugs. View "USA v. Dennis" on Justia Law

Defendant owned and operated a healthcare clinic. Along with another provider, Defendant engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for home health services that were not properly authorized, not medically necessary, and, in some cases, not provided. Insiders testified to Defendant's role in the conspiracy, indicating she knew the home healthcare agencies were paying marketers to recruit patients. Defendant also told an undercover FBI agent she could show him how to make money by recruiting patients. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 300 months in federal prison.Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against her. However, the Fifth Circuit affirmed her conviction, finding that a rational jury could have concluded that Defendant knew about and willfully joined the conspiracy. Additionally, the court rejected Defendant's challenges to her sentence, finding that the district court did not commit a procedural error and that her sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "USA v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In accordance with powers vested in him by the Texas Legislature, Governor Greg Abbott promulgated Executive Order GA-38 to unify the State’s response to COVID-19. Among other things, GA-38 prohibited school districts from imposing mask mandates. Some students sued. Then the district court permanently enjoined the Texas Attorney General from enforcing GA-38.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss the suit without prejudice. The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that Plaintiffs have not presented an injury in fact sufficient to satisfy Article III. To establish such an injury, plaintiffs must show they “suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016). The court wrote that Plaintiffs haven’t carried that burden here because (1) the injury they’ve alleged is not a cognizable injury in fact, and (2) they may not relabel their injury as something it’s not. View "E.T. v. Paxton" on Justia Law