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

Petitioner was convicted of felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Petitioner initiated a postconviction proceeding in federal district court. The district court rejected all of Petitioner’s claims of trial error. Petitioner then sought a certificate of appealability.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied Petitioner’s habeas relief. The court held that while certain conduct by the prosecutor during the trial violated the Due Process Clause, Petitioner was not prejudiced by the violation. The court analyzed Petitioner’s collateral attack on his state criminal conviction under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Here, at the outset of custodial interrogation following his arrest, the Ranger gave Petitioner the statutorily required warning that he “ha[d] the right to terminate the interview at any time.” Petitioner immediately invoked this right. The prosecutor subsequently relied on that invocation at trial as evidence of Petitioner’s sanity. The State pointed out that, although Miranda established a right to terminate custodial questioning, this was not one of the rights of which the Court held that suspects must be apprised before questioning begins.   The court concluded that the prosecutor violated the Due Process Clause when he used Petitioner’s invocation of his right to terminate custodial interrogation as evidence of sanity. However, the court further held that the fact that Petitioner’s due-process rights were violated does not necessarily mean that he is entitled to habeas relief. Here, he failed to demonstrate prejudice or that the constitutional violation had a substantial effect on the verdict. View "Engle v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Many Defendants belonging to the "39ers" a New Orleans gang, were convicted of various RICO-related offenses. Ten Defendants appealed their convictions on multiple grounds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the vast majority of Defendant's convictions. However, the court reversed most of the Defendants' Sec. 924 convictions related to using a firearm during or in furtherance of a crime of violence.The district court's jury instruction permitted the jury to convict on the Sec. 924 offenses if it found that the Defendants were guilty of aggravated RICO conspiracy or drug trafficking. However, under United States v. McClaren, 13 F.4th 386 (5th Cir. 2021), aggravated RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence. Thus, the court reversed most of the Defendants' convictions under Sec. 924. View "USA v. Perry, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant and accomplices stole millions of dollars in a transcontinental business email compromise scheme. A jury convicted him of fraud, money laundering, and identity theft for his role in the operation. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence for the fraud and laundering convictions, arguing that the district court erred by including five enhancements when calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. He argued that the district court should not have added two points to his offense level for a crime that involved sophisticated means. He further faulted the district court for applying a two-level enhancement for an offense involving "the possession or use of any . . . authentication feature." Finally, he claimed that the district court misapplied the four-level aggravating role enhancement.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and held that the district court did not err when including five enhancements when calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. The court concluded that Defendant’s conduct falls within the definition of "sophisticated means." The court reasoned that he created at least forty fraudulent bank accounts in the names of real and fictitious persons and business entities to receive funds from his victims. He then transferred the funds between those accounts and eventually to accounts in his true name; together these actions constitute sophisticated means. Further, the scheme involved multiple participants across two continents and several states. The text of the Guideline and its commentary supports the application of the enhancement and confirms that the enhancement applies "regardless of whether the defendant actually was associated with the organization." View "USA v. Aderinoye" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is an education company that owns various trademarks, including "Read a Million Words," "Million Dollar Reader," "Millionaire Reader," and " Millionaire Reading Club." Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, a public school district in Texas, based on trademark infringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant.The thrust of any Lanham Act complaint is that the defendant's use of the mark causes confusion which harms the plaintiff's interests. Here, Defendant's implementation of a "million-word reading challenge" would not result in any reasonable person being confused between Defendant's use of the terms and Plaintiff's products. Further, Plaintiff does not make any claim that Defendant was a competitor, only that their use of the terms caused confusion. View "Springboards to Educ v. Pharr San Juan" on Justia Law

Defendant was involuntarily committed to the emergency room for protective custody after law enforcement found he was a danger to himself or others. He remained committed for 15 days. Two weeks later, Defendant was again committed, this time for 13 days. Several years later, in 2019, Defendant bought a firearm. In doing so, he answer negatively to the question asking if he'd ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. Subsequently, Defendant attempted to buy firearms two other times. An ATF warned Defendant he was ineligible to purchase a firearm, which did not deter Defendant.Defendant was arrested and charged with three counts of making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer and two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition. The indictment alleged only that Defendant had been adjudicated as a “mental defective”; it did not mention commitment. However, the district court instructed the jury it could find him guilty if he was adjudicated as a mental defective or if he had been committed.The Fifth Circuit found that the district court committed plain error when it instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant if it could he had been committed. The instructions allowed the jury to convict based on uncharged conduct. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed Defendant's convictions. View "USA v. Tucker" on Justia Law

A grand jury charged Defendant with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. As his criminal case proceeded, medical examiners diagnosed Defendant with paranoid schizophrenia. Defendant moved to discontinue or modify his conditional release. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and gave a thorough explanation of its reasons for doing so. The district court also issued an order modifying Defendant’s conditions of release, which included an order requiring Defendant to receive monthly injections of Haldol at his previously prescribed dosage.   On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion for unconditional release and by ordering his healthcare provider to administer psychiatrist medication at a dosage he finds neither acceptable nor necessary.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s request to discontinue or modify his conditional release. The court reasoned that reversal for clear error is appropriate only where “the entire evidence” leaves the reviewing court “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Here, the Government exhaustively recounted the testimony of two witnesses who lend considerable support to the district court’s factual findings. The court found that it is reasonable to defer to the district court’s superior knowledge of the defendant’s situation in cases where an insane defendant is released from custody under a medical regimen designed to promote his recovery and protect society. View "USA v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after he and a co-defendant attempted to sell narcotics to an undercover police officer. Defendant was indicted for distributing narcotics. During trial, at the conclusion of the government's evidence, Defendant unsuccessfully moved for judgment of acquittal. During jury deliberations, jurors sent six notes to the judge, several of which indicated they could not reach a unanimous decision. The district court eventually provided an Allen instruction, to which Defendant's attorney verbally expressed he had no objection. The jury ultimately convicted Defendant.Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court's decision to provide an Allen instruction to the jury. Applying plain error review, the Fifth Circuit rejected each of Defendant's appellate issues, affirming his conviction.Regarding Defendant's Allen claim, the court held that Defendant waived his ability to challenge the issue on appeal because his attorney failed to object at the time it was issued. Although Defendant's waiver was through counsel, a defendant's attorney is his agent in the proceedings. The court noted that deciding whether to object to an Allen jury instruction is a tactical decision. View "USA v. Cabello" on Justia Law

Defendant, a foreign oil company, contracted with Ecuador to develop an oil-rich region of the rainforest. Defendant paid its Ecuadorian employees a sizable portion of its annual profits. The government canceled the exploration contract and expropriated Occidental’s property, leading to massive losses. Profits and profit-sharing abruptly ceased. Occidental sought arbitration and, a decade later, received a nearly billion-dollar settlement from Ecuador. Plaintiffs, a group of Occidental’s former Ecuadorian employees, then sued Occidental, claiming the arbitration settlement represented profits they were entitled to share. The district court correctly dismissed the employees’ claims. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims holding that Defendant owes its former employees no shared profits for the relevant year. The court reasoned that under the plain terms of Ecuadorian law, a company’s profit-sharing obligation depends on the profits lawfully declared in its annual tax returns. Plaintiffs maintained that tax returns are “not the exclusive mechanism for determining profit-sharing liability.” However, the court held Ecuador's law is clear that the calculation [of profits shall be conducted on the basis of the declarations or determinations prepared for the payment of Income Tax, and Occidental’s tax returns for the interrupted year of 2006 showed not profits but losses. View "Cisneros Guerrero, et al v. Occidental Petro, et a" on Justia Law

A&D Interests, Incorporated (doing business as the “Heartbreakers Gentlemen’s Club”), petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners argue that the district court should not have certified a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action comprised of “exotic” dancers who had worked at Heartbreakers in the last three years.   The Fifth Circuit granted Petitioner’s motion for a writ of mandamus in their Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. The court held that none of the three causes of the arbitration agreement prohibit potential plaintiffs from participating in collective action.   The court analyzed whether mandamus is warranted and found that Petitioners met the first requirement because the relevant issue will become moot before Petitioners can file an appeal. The court held that the second requirement is met because ensuring judicial neutrality and preventing district courts from needlessly stirring up litigation is good cause for a writ to issue. Thus, the court held that in light of In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2019), the district court clearly and indisputably erred. View "In re: A&D Interests" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court overturned Plaintiff’s Louisiana capital murder conviction, Plaintiff brought Section 1983 and 1988 suits against the state prosecutor and a sheriff’s detective, alleging that they fabricated evidence that deprived him of due process and a fair trial. Defendants, District Attorney and Livingston Parish Sheriff’s, each moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(c) based on assertions of absolute prosecutorial immunity. The district court denied the motions, holding that neither defendant was entitled to absolute immunity for fabricating evidence by intimidating and coercing a juvenile to adopt a false narrative the defendants had concocted out of whole cloth.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that a police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity reserved for a prosecutor. The court held that neither the Detective nor the District attorney is owed absolute immunity under the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has made clear that police officers, even when working in concert with prosecutors, are not entitled to absolute immunity. Nor are prosecutors when they step outside of their role as advocates and fabricate evidence. The facts and actions alleged by the complaint are fundamentally investigatory in nature, and therefore absolute immunity is not warranted. View "Wearry v. Foster" on Justia Law