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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Vertafore's motion to dismiss in an action brought by plaintiffs, Texas driver's license holders, alleging claims under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) after Vertafore announced that unauthorized users had gained access to personal information protected by the statute that Vertafore had stored on unsecured external servers. Vertafore argued that plaintiffs failed to allege both that the company acted with an impermissible purpose and that the company made a knowing disclosure. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not alleged a disclosure within the meaning of the DPPA, and thus the court need not reach the issue of whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Vertafore acted knowingly and with an impermissible purpose. View "Allen v. Vertafore, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement, sexual exploitation of a child, and possession of child pornography. The court upheld the district court's application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4)(A) for an offense involving material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(3) for distribution of child pornography; and a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) for the commission of a sexual act or sexual contact. The court also upheld the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines grouping rules. View "United States v. McGavitt" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit ordered a limited remand in this appeal challenging the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduced sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. In this case, the district court's order said that it had considered the applicable factors provided in section 404 and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). However, the district court's additional statement that it considered applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission indicates that the district court may have erroneously applied the compassionate release standard that requires review of policy statements. Because such policy statements are not applicable because defendant averred that he was not seeking compassionate release, the court remanded for clarification. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wedgewood in Texas state court after his mother, Emma Mitchell, died in a nursing home. Plaintiff alleged state-law causes of action for medical negligence, corporate negligence, and gross negligence. After removal to federal court, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to remand to state court.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act does not completely preempt plaintiff's state-law negligence claims. The court explained that, because the compensation fund created by the Act does not satisfy this Circuit's test for complete preemption, and because plaintiff could not have brought his claims under the willful-misconduct cause of action, those claims are not completely preempted. The court also rejected Wedgewood's claim that plaintiff's claims raise a significant federal issue that creates federal jurisdiction under the Grable doctrine. The court concluded that Wedgewood cannot avail itself of the federal officer removal statute because it failed to satisfy the third prong of the test where it was not acting pursuant to a federal officer's directions. Accordingly, the court remanded with directions to further remand to the appropriate state court. View "Mitchell v. Advanced HCS, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment reversing the bankruptcy court's denial of claimants' motions seeking leave to file their respective proofs of claim. Considering the four Pioneer factors, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that claimants failed to meet their burden of proving excusable neglect. Although the danger-of-prejudice factor weighs in favor of claimants, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by holding that the length-of-delay factor weighs in favor of debtors. Furthermore, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the reason-for-the-delay factor and the good faith factor weighs in debtors' favor. Given the exceptionally deferential standard of review applicable here, and because the prejudice factor does not outweigh the other three Pioneer factors, the court cannot say that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion. View "West Wilmington Oil Field Claimants v. Nabors Corporate Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court plainly erred when it delegated to a probation officer the determination of whether he must participate in an inpatient or outpatient substance abuse treatment program. In this case, the district court merely delegated the details of the conditions to the officer. Furthermore, it is not clear or obvious that a 45-month sentence is short enough such that the delegation of the inpatient or outpatient designation to a probation officer amounts to a restriction of defendant's liberty. Therefore, defendant failed to show plain error. View "United States v. Aguilar-Cerda" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for compassionate release or release to home confinement under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) based on extraordinary and compelling reasons including the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, factually or legally, by deciding the conditions at defendant's prison and his medical conditions were insufficiently compelling and extraordinary to entitle him to relief. In this case, defendant suffers from hypertension and obesity, and his hypertension is apparently controlled through medication. Furthermore, defendant has not experienced serious heart problems since he suffered a heart attack in 2014 and he has served less than half of his 168-month sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act (FSA) and remanded in light of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court did not have the benefit of Shkambi, where the court clarified that Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines does not bind district courts when they resolve prisoners’ compassionate-release motions, when it denied defendant's motion and it appears to have mistakenly concluded that Section 1B1.13 governed its analysis of defendant's prisoner-filed motion. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' action against the TDCJ and several of its officials over prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs allege that TDCJ failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their co-morbidities and take other precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic and, in so doing, violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.The court concluded that plaintiffs' undisputed failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) resolves this case. Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, TDCJ's written response to the Step 1 grievance shows that TDCJ's grievance process could provide at least some relief to plaintiffs. The court explained that the process may have been suboptimal, but it was available as a matter of law and thus, plaintiffs were required to exhaust it before bringing this suit. View "Thoele v. Collier" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120 month sentence for attempting to obtain or possess methamphetamine in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err by applying the USSG 2P1.2 cross-reference to USSG 2D1.1 and the subsequent two-level enhancement of USSG 2D1.1(b)(4) based on defendant's intention to distribute the methamphetamine. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c) based on defendant's role as a leader in the scheme. View "United States v. Anguiano" on Justia Law